• Advertisement

Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!!

Melbourne / Victoria Transport Discussion

Moderator: MAN 16.242

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby Roderick Smith » Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:53 pm

Dream on everyone. The tightest spot is 16.5 m, which is close enough to the 17 m which holds four tracks at Camberwell: I would have to go down with a metal tape measure, and march across the tracks at 3.00.
Not one of the artist's impressions shows four tracks, or what the effect would be. Not one of the impressions shows the tracks when running fenceline to fencline.
The whole project has been based on a set of carefully-constructed lies, with gullible politicians, gullible journalists, and gullible railway enthusiasts swallowing them.
I have lots of documents which are too large to post by ATDB rules.
Stage 1: Give it a marketing brand name, to make a noxious idea sound wonderful.
Stage 2: ignore the urban blight.
Stage 3: tell everyone that they were consulted, and that there will be no compensation. That is for third-world countries, and megastatues of the supreme leader dominate the stations.

PTV's glib UK salesperson, to an adoring audience of Labor politicans and management apologists, more relevant today than when the foresightful episode was televised:

Well, sir, there's nothing on earth.
Like a genuine, bona fide.
Electrified, nine-car skyrail.
What'd I say?

Skyrail.
What's it called?
Skyrail.
That's right! Skyrail.

Skyrail.
Skyrail.
Skyrail.

I hear those things are awfully loud.
It glides as softly as a cloud.
Is there a chance a train could fall?
Not on your life, Carnegieites all.

What about us middle-class folk?
You're kids can buy way out at Pak.
Were you sent by Sydney Devils?
No, good sir, I'm on the level.

The sun came off my vegie plot.
Take my fake smile, just as hot..
I swear it's Melbourne's only choice.
Throw up your hands and raise your voice.

Skyrail.
What's it called?
Skyail.
Once again.
Skyrail.

But Metro's still all cracked and broken.
Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken.

Skyrail!
Skyrail!
Sykyrail!
Skyrail!

sky, nooo!

Roderick.
Roderick Smith
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:44 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 193 times

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby jarf » Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:12 pm

^ The corridor through Camberwell, however, doesn't meet current rail engineering standards.

A four track line built to current standards requires a corridor width of at least 20 metres, that is 4.0 metre track centres plus a 2.0 metre safe area on either side where there's any fence or structure along the line (in this case a retaining wall).
Random Gunzel Insanity - http://jarfness.blogspot.com/
User avatar
jarf
 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Stab Albans
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 106 times
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L94UA/Volgren CR228L

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby krustyklo » Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:27 pm

West of Oakleigh is where it gets a little complicated. The corridor mostly isn't (and without serious properly acquisition, won't be) wide enough for four tracks.


Whilst 4 tracks all the way from Dandenong to Caulfield would be ideal, would an interim measure be to build them from Oakleigh to Dandenong, where there is space, to seperate out and speed up express services? Whilst express services would be stuck behind stopping all stations services between Caulfield and Oakleigh, if they had a clear run overtaking stopping services past there then I would imagine you could save quite a few minutes and would give scope for timetable recovery as a second best option compared to not having them at all?
User avatar
krustyklo
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Bundoora, VIC
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 253 times

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby jarf » Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:41 pm

Yes, although it's not perfect it would certainly help somewhat. Running express Oakleigh to Dandenong you could easily save seven minutes (six with a stop at Springvale). At the very least an express would be able to overtake a stopping service running in front of it.

The only issue is how to prevent conflicting moves, considering both additional tracks would be on the same side. :wink:
Random Gunzel Insanity - http://jarfness.blogspot.com/
User avatar
jarf
 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Stab Albans
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 106 times
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L94UA/Volgren CR228L

Re: Incompetent PTV

Postby Roderick Smith » Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:42 pm

Yes, PTV changed the rules uselessly, just to keep some useless official justifying why he should keep his job. Get rid of the lot. PTV has done nothing for public transport, and should never have been created.
However, 20 m width is available by trenching: cantilever 2 m of backyard over the outer tracks.
20 m is not available by elevating: cantilever 2 m over backyards.
Change the rules back to sanity: the trains are no fatter.
PTV is determined to get the Labor government voted out, and seems set to succeed.

Roderick
Roderick Smith
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:44 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 193 times

Re: Incompetent PTV

Postby Alex on the Bus » Sat Feb 13, 2016 9:01 am

Roderick Smith wrote:... 20 m width is available by trenching: cantilever 2 m of backyard over the outer tracks.
20 m is not available by elevating: cantilever 2 m over backyards.


Has anyone else here read those lines, then had the rush off to the chemist to buy Panadeine for the mind-splitting headache that example of grotesquely twisted logic caused? Let me try and understand that without the assistance of strong analgesics: you can built a cantilevered platform over a trench (regardless of whether the earth is stable enough to attach the structure), but you can't build a railway on a viaduct and allow property owners to use the unadulterated ground in their backyards (or even acquire an easement for the air rights possibly required)?

Had there not been the haste to tout the public open space potentially created by elevating the line, a possible sweetener for owners of adjoining properties would have been to annex some of the land under the viaducts to them (albeit with an easement to allow required access for maintenance or emergencies). That could possibly reduce the concerns over activities under the viaducts by placing that land in their hands.
Oh, what a perfect world this world would be,
If he was President now - but he's not.
User avatar
Alex on the Bus
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Some place overpopulated with Cats supporters
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L113CRB/Ansair Commuter

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby Alstom 888M » Sat Feb 13, 2016 12:47 pm

I thought of something that may be comparible and already found around Melbourne:

Transmission Lines. They require a large easement (how large depends on the voltage) both for safety reasons and because they cause interference to AM radios, Wi-Fi, cordless phones, possibly more. Around 500kV lines the easement can be a hundred meters wide, and unless you are Darryl Kerrigan, considered quite ugly. You don't generally hear about residents complaining about them apart from Brunswick (possibly because the latté sippers aren't smart enough to figure out if they get torn down they will have no power).These easements are often used as parks, bike paths, walking trails, etc. and generally do not have any more graffiti than the surrounding areas.
All my posts on this board represents my personal views and opinions only. They may not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or values of those of my family, friends, colleagues, or employer.
User avatar
Alstom 888M
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 7:50 pm
Location: Out back of 'Straya
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Elevated Rail Lineand useless PTV

Postby Roderick Smith » Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:39 pm

Tough luck if Alex couldn't understand my post, and descended into Railpage Australia TM abuse to cover his inability.
Having railways over private property is for totalitarian nations. China does it (partly because there is no private property, build above or bulldoze is national philosophy).
There is no difference cantilevering yards or station carparking over a trench than there is in roofing over cut and cover, just not full decking. If the ground can't cope, then run the supporting beams from one side of the trench to the other. There will be pipes doing the same in various places.
That way, PTV gets its desired 20 m, private property remains useful. Of course, the standard could be changed back to 17 m: Camberwell has not been closed as a safety risk.
PTV has changed the rules time after time to suit some bizarre new needs, imported fresh from UK.
At Heidelberg, the double track could have been extended to the tunnel mouth on each side. Sulky PTV doesn't like that.
On the up side, the bridge was renewed in single track, and PTV changed the rules regarding intermediate train stops: the existing one survives via grandfather rights. Duplicating to the tunnel mouth would not allow a down train to enter the platform while an up train approaches.
At the other end, the cutting was built for double track, but extending the track to the tunnel mouth isn't allowed by PTV: the cutting now offends the altered width standards, and the overlap rule would apply again. That is a rule which can be changed with speed-proving train stops even ahead of sophisticated European signalling. NZR did a similar move on the Johnsonville line without even speed proving: catchpoints into sandtraps at each of the short loops (designed for two-car trains to cross two car trains, with just one example of two crossing four in each peak).
PTV will stop at nothing until it gets full duplication of the tunnel, with the end result being that the system has nothing, and the budge goes into a Swanston St tunnel.

At Clifton Hill, there was foresight in building four openings in the 1950s urban blight overline bridge. Years ago, the Hurstbridge line could have been extended to have a train stand clear of the Epping line while waiting. Likewise, the track could have been brought right up to the bridge from Dennis, minimising the delay while waiting for an opposing train. Sulky PTV didn't want that: it allowed a commercial building to be erected in front of the openening, and got is desired extra bridge, but retained the flat junction. Both the tunnel and the bridge being single line are now worse as delay sources than is the flat junction.

Ferntree Gully and Upwey and Diamond Creek and Westona are not allowed to have simultaneous arrivals under PTV rules, so of course delays are not minimised.

Now we have the announcement of elevating the Altona line over Kororoit Creek Rd as single track: again, no futureproofing.

Melbourne's underground was built for eight-car double-deck trains. In the most bizarre policy of the lot, PTV has switched its thinking to incompatible nine-car single-deck ones, again so that it get its desired gold plated project to the detriment of everything else. The artificial capacity 'crisis' to Pakenham would never have happened if DoI/DoT/PTV had been in any way competent 12 years ago.

As noted in the preceding post: easements around powerlines are wide. PTV could elevate in the Noble Park Zone, possibly through Clayton, and for much of the distance beyond Cheltenham. In the 1920s suburbs, trenching remains the only useful solution, because the easements were never made sufficiently wide for futureproofing: 'We'll never need that'. That is the same philosophy as not creating any new easements, eliminating those reserved for Doncaster and Rowville, and nobbling Flinders St. It was also behind the cheapskating of the 1981 loop: insufficient portals, and building others in wrong places, and getting the geometry of the Sandringham entry wrong (never fixed). It was the same philosophy as the cheapskating at East Richmond, South Kensington and now Laburnum and Mitcham and Nunawading and Springvale. There is nothing praiseworthy in the Dandenong proposals.

Roderick Smith
Roderick Smith
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:44 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 193 times

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby Alex on the Bus » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:48 pm

No, Rod, I understood your post: the rights of property holders trump all others, including any regard to practicality. Classic thinking from the Institute of Public Affairs.

Just to change tack, slightly, I'm going to call on your all-encompassing knowledge of all things to do with railway and ask you this: how would your typical up Maryvale freight cope with starting on a grade of around 3.3% after being held at signals approaching Caulfield? Given the slope up from Grange Road to the junction as I posted some time ago (about 3 metres), plus the assumption that a lowered track would normally lie 9 metres below grade, that's the sort of slope one would end up with.
Oh, what a perfect world this world would be,
If he was President now - but he's not.
User avatar
Alex on the Bus
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Some place overpopulated with Cats supporters
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L113CRB/Ansair Commuter

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby jarf » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:45 pm

Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant hey?

PTV had nothing to do with the setup at Clifton Hill (in fact, they didn't even exist until three years later, under the Baillieu government).

The current VRIOG structure gauge standards date back to the days of the PTC, which as we all know was phased out in 1999. :roll:
Random Gunzel Insanity - http://jarfness.blogspot.com/
User avatar
jarf
 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Stab Albans
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 106 times
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L94UA/Volgren CR228L

Re: Elevated Rail Lineand useless PTV

Postby RailwayBus » Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:13 am

Roderick Smith wrote:Ferntree Gully and Upwey and Diamond Creek and Westona are not allowed to have simultaneous arrivals under PTV rules, so of course delays are not minimised.


Crap.

Simultaneous arrivals happen all the time at Upwey and Westona, and now even happen at Diamond Creek during night network running (and could happen at other times too if the timetable was ever amended to reflect no more staff and ticket working).

Ferntree Gully isn't a PTV rule. It's just a poor signalling set up which has existed since long before PTV was ever created, and the sequence only needs to be changed on a single signal (to match what exists in many other locations across Melbourne) and it'd be fixed.
All views expressed are strictly my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else.
User avatar
RailwayBus
 
Posts: 4356
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 9:40 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 327 times
Favourite Vehicle: Train or tram.

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby Heihachi_73 » Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:54 pm

An extra track to Belgrave would also fix that. What's good for the goose (double tracks to South Morang) is also good for the gander. I think they refuse to extend the single track sections just because they want to make public transport look like a joke. Lilydale should have been done when they double-tracked Ringwood to Mooroolbark decades ago.
User avatar
Heihachi_73
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:48 pm
Location: Ringwood
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby Craig » Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:21 pm

Heihachi_73 wrote:An extra track to Belgrave would also fix that. What's good for the goose (double tracks to South Morang) is also good for the gander. I think they refuse to extend the single track sections just because they want to make public transport look like a joke. Lilydale should have been done when they double-tracked Ringwood to Mooroolbark decades ago.


Just like Caroline Springs and the grade separation on the Altona loop, I can see them deciding to build a station at Cave Hill as part of the current redevelopment of the former quarry (the master plan only suggests land will be set aside) and still neglecting the need for double track. :twisted:

Kind Regards


Craig :-)
User avatar
Craig
 
Posts: 4221
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: Edithvale, VIC
Has thanked: 1205 times
Been thanked: 427 times

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby jarf » Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:00 pm

^ The fact sheet claims there'll be allowance for future duplication of the Altona line. Logic would dictate that the bridge should be built to double-track width, but I doubt that'll happen. :twisted:
Random Gunzel Insanity - http://jarfness.blogspot.com/
User avatar
jarf
 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Stab Albans
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 106 times
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L94UA/Volgren CR228L

Re: Elevated Rail Lineand useless PTV

Postby notch » Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:29 pm

RailwayBus wrote:
Roderick Smith wrote:Ferntree Gully and Upwey and Diamond Creek and Westona are not allowed to have simultaneous arrivals under PTV rules, so of course delays are not minimised.


Crap.

Simultaneous arrivals happen all the time at Upwey and Westona, and now even happen at Diamond Creek during night network running (and could happen at other times too if the timetable was ever amended to reflect no more staff and ticket working).

Ferntree Gully isn't a PTV rule. It's just a poor signalling set up which has existed since long before PTV was ever created, and the sequence only needs to be changed on a single signal (to match what exists in many other locations across Melbourne) and it'd be fixed.


Some corrections.
The current interlocking at Diamond Creek will not allow simultaneous arrivals.

If a route is pulled from either Home Arrival signal to either platform, the second route from the opposing Home Arrival signal to the opposite platform will "stack" and not set up until the first train is stationary and a timeout period happens (usually ~20-30sec).

Ferntree Gully simply requires good timing.

Both scenarios are, as I understand it, for runaway/overlap protection.

It's also worth mentioning that Upwey does also require speed proving for the Down Arrival Home (40) to clear to a Medium Speed Warning aspect.

Lilydale and Sunbury also do not allow simultaneous "arrivals" - in Lilydale's case it is not possible for a train to dock from the sidings leading to Platform 1 and a Down train to arrive from Platform 2 and vice versa (and it was installed by VicRail) and Sunbury does not allow a Down train to arrive into either platform if an Up train off the East Line is signalled to arrive, and vice versa.
notch
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:15 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby notch » Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:34 pm

Heihachi_73 wrote:An extra track to Belgrave would also fix that.
An extra track beyond Upper Ferntree Gully is not practicable nor really required.

In regard to supposed "PTV rules preventing simultaneous arrivals [on signle lines]" - no mention was made of Gowrie, Eltham, Greensborough, Riversdale (for trains using the "X" line from Camberwell, Mooroolbark, Altona Junction, Laverton or Upper Ferntree Gully.

If there was such a rule, surely these locations would all prevent simultaneous arrivals.

They don't.
notch
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:15 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby Alex on the Bus » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:31 am

More coverage from yesterday:

The Age wrote:Friends in high places: transport groups back elevated rail plan
March 7, 2016 - 3:59PM
Adam Carey
Transport Reporter for The Age


Motoring, public transport, cycling and pedestrian lobby groups are united in their support of sky rail, the contentious plan to raise nine kilometres of the Dandenong rail line.

In a surprising show of solidarity, the RACV, Bus Association Victoria, Bicycle Network, Victoria Walks and the Public Transport Users Association have all endorsed the Andrews government's elevated rail plan to remove nine of Melbourne's worst level crossings.

The plan has provoked a fierce backlash from residents, who fear the rail viaduct will build a barrier between communities, attract crime and graffiti, increase noise from trains and reduce property values.

Residents along the rail line through Melbourne's south-east have also objected to being given scant hint of the decision to rebuild the line above-ground instead of digging a rail trench.

The state opposition has marshalled the community anger into a well-organised anti-sky rail campaign that has spread to suburbs along the Frankston line, where designs for the planned removal of 11 level crossings are still up in the air.

But these arguments have been rejected by four influential transport groups, who all argue that sky rail will benefit Melbourne's transport network.

They say benefits include the ability to run more frequent rail services, less congestion, quicker and more reliable bus journeys and new bike paths and walking trails.

Brian Negus, RACV general manager, said that while most of Melbourne's recent grade separations have involved putting rail under the road, it should not be assumed that this is the only way, or the best way, of removing level crossings.

"Elevated rail is used successfully around the world and can be delivered with less disruption, generate less noise and create new spaces underneath to deliver better public facilities for the community," Mr Negus said.

The sky rail plan would avoid carving a nine-kilometre trench through the suburbs, he said.

The Cranbourne-Pakenham rail line would have been shut for an estimated 230 days over two years had the line been put in an open-cut trench, but will instead close for an estimated 70 days, mostly on weekends.

The nine level crossings on the line are among the worst in Melbourne for creating congestion, closing intersecting roads for between 72 and 87 minutes in the two-hour morning peak.

Seven bus routes are also caught in traffic at these crossings.

Chris Lowe, executive director of Bus Association Victoria, said the sky rail project was an innovative way to keep Melbourne moving in a time of rapid population growth.

"The reduction of rail and road travel times and freeing up of land for other uses including cycling, walking and jogging will be good for the economy and our well-being," Mr Lowe said.

Bicycle Network chief executive Craig Richards said placing sections of a 17-kilometre bike route under the rail viaduct was a brilliant solution.

"This is the key, future bike corridor through Melbourne's south-east and it would have been extremely difficult to squeeze it in alongside rail at ground level," Mr Richards said.

"Melbourne needs more imaginative thinking like this if we are to get our transport system up to expectations."

Ben Rossiter, executive officer of Victoria Walks, said "elevating the rail line provides an opportunity to reconnect the suburbs on either side and allow people to walk between neighbourhoods".

Public Transport Users Association spokesman Daniel Bowen said the sky rail design had the volunteer group's support because it would benefit "the vast majority of people".

But David Davis, opposition planning spokesman, said sky rail would permanently blight Melbourne's south-east, leaving residents near the line materially worse off.

"The concerns of residents facing a $200,000-$250,000 reduction in the value of their properties outweigh the opinions of a comfortably distant government cheer squad," Mr Davis said.

"Everyone supports level crossing removals, and rail under road in particular. A few weeks more disruption now would have all nine level crossings properly removed with all the long-term benefits that entails and, importantly, avoid imposing an unwanted century of blight on the local community."

The Andrews government plans to remove every level crossing between Caulfield and Dandenong by 2018, at a cost of $1.6 billion.
Oh, what a perfect world this world would be,
If he was President now - but he's not.
User avatar
Alex on the Bus
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Some place overpopulated with Cats supporters
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L113CRB/Ansair Commuter

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby pakenhamtrain » Tue Mar 08, 2016 5:25 pm

http://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media- ... -rail-over
The LCRA also released a fact sheet on why it's rail over.
Insert 200 characters as signature
User avatar
pakenhamtrain
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:43 am
Location: Narre Warren
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby V981 » Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:14 pm

I've been paying some close attention to the media coverage of this proposal, more specifically the public reaction to it all. It is interesting to note the great divide between public opinions in different suburbs based on the "letters to the editors" pages in local newspapers in addition to social media posts.

It would seem that generally speaking, the majority of people in the area between Springvale and Dandenong tend to favor the Sky Rail option. This could be attributed to the fact that the project not only removes the much disliked railways crossings at Corrigan Road, Heatherton Road and Chandler Road, but will also provide brand new Railway Stations to Noble Park and Sandown Park. Sandown Park in particular is extremely tired and ghastly looking, so to see a new station built here can only be a good thing. In addition to this, the proposal for new parklands and bike trails under the Skyrail is generally being welcomed, and part of Noble Parks ever improving Ross Reserve precinct is set to get further enhancements as part of this project. Noble Park will also see some benefits with the relocation of the railway station by a few hundred metres to be closer to Heatherton Road, which will allow for Ian Street to run through to Douglas Street, which will unite both sides of the shopping area. Currently Ian Street is drab looking and contains quite a few vacant shops, due to it being away from the main activity area in Douglas Street. By joining Ian Street to this main activity area, I expect that over time, this will improve the Ian Street area with new shops moving in. (An apartment complex is already earmarked for the old Sportsmart site here).

As a contrast, the residents of the stretch between Caulfield and Oakleigh seem to be bitterly opposed to the Sky Rail option. While the locals in this area will see enormous benefit from the removal of crossings at Grange Road, Carnegie, Murumbeena and Hughesdale, these residents seem to cite privacy, noise concerns, aesthetic appeal and property values as reasons for their opposition to the SkyRail option. Some of these arguments are flawed in my opinion. As a general rule, their property values are already lower, but on the back of their property being adjacent to the railway line, so I can't see property values being too drastically effected by this project. Privacy is a non issue. Anybody who already uses the train on this line can already see into the backyards of many of these homes. (And some of them are not pretty I might just add). With the sky rail proposed to be elevated by some 9 metres, you will actually see less into their backyards. The addition of sound deflecting sidewalls will also limit the view into peoples properties aswell as cut down on the noise levels being emitted.

Murumbeena resident Ed Meystowicz has commissioned his own "artists impression" how the SkyRail will look from his own backyard. Mr Meystowicz has added a touch of graffiti to illustrate his point, and he is greatly apposed to the project due to the "visually unappealing" outcome it will produce. Some might determine that the fact that Mr Meystowic or members of his family don't bother to mow their grass is also "visually unappealing" but that is neither here nor there. Just somewhat ironic.
Image
The views expressed by me are mine and mine only. They do not neccesarily fall in line with the views of my friends, family, collegues or my employer.
V981
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:14 pm
Location: Dandenong Victoria
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 154 times
Favourite Vehicle: Anything Volvo

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby Heihachi_73 » Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:19 am

Do I see Connex colours in that "photo"?
User avatar
Heihachi_73
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:48 pm
Location: Ringwood
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby krustyklo » Sun Mar 13, 2016 7:07 pm

Do I see Connex colours in that "photo"?

I'd say it looks more like the M>Train livery, the giveaway being the white curved "smile" at the front, the dark patch below the windscreen to match, and the white stripe on the livery instead of yellow. I did wonder if the livery was being obscured by the provacy screens , but the person doing the rendering has made sure the privacy screens are fairly transparent...
User avatar
krustyklo
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Bundoora, VIC
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 253 times

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby system improver » Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:42 am

No need for an artist's impression of the current arrangement. Perhaps a photo of a train going past their back fence today, for comparison, would be interesting. Also, if the track is going to be built so far from the ground, at least their will be no danger of quadruple decker buses getting stuck underneath. I would have thought that 6 metres, rather than 16 metres would be high enough.
User avatar
system improver
 
Posts: 2791
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:38 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 326 times
Been thanked: 437 times
Favourite Vehicle: 1949 MBA Seddon

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby krustyklo » Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:37 pm

I would have thought that 6 metres, rather than 16 metres would be high enough.

I'm pretty sure I read that the extra height was to allow more sunshine in to help plant life grow underneath and make the space underneath the viaducts more attractive. Ditto the seperate viaducts. Possibly spin, but makes some sense.
User avatar
krustyklo
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Bundoora, VIC
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 253 times

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby RailwayBus » Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Sandown Park is not getting a new station. The new stations will be at Carnegie, Murrumbeena, Hughesdale, Clayton and Noble Park.
All views expressed are strictly my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else.
User avatar
RailwayBus
 
Posts: 4356
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 9:40 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 327 times
Favourite Vehicle: Train or tram.

Re: Secret Proposal Leaked To Construct Elevated Rail Line!!

Postby V981 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:39 pm

RailwayBus wrote:Sandown Park is not getting a new station. The new stations will be at Carnegie, Murrumbeena, Hughesdale, Clayton and Noble Park.


Well, I look forward to the opening day, and seeing how people conquer the gap between the existing platform and the train doors some 9 metres upwards. :roll:
The views expressed by me are mine and mine only. They do not neccesarily fall in line with the views of my friends, family, collegues or my employer.
V981
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:14 pm
Location: Dandenong Victoria
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 154 times
Favourite Vehicle: Anything Volvo

PreviousNext


  • Advertisement

Return to Discussion - Melbourne / VIC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests