RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Infrastructure and Signalling

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby jdekorte » Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:02 am

xtrapolis954m wrote:If there was nothing out there, like in the case of Parwan (to the best of my memory), I dislike the idea of running electric trains (or any train) further than they have to. Again, dead running is not good…

…In the case of Baxter, however, there are towns/suburbs that the trains go to. By building a depot down there, you would also run trains down there to serve Baxter; Leawarra & perhaps a new station adjacent to the Victoria University Frankston Campus. Not that bad an idea when you think of it. But, I digress…

Cheers, Lachlan.

Just to be picky, there isn't a campus of Victoria University in Frankston as that Uni services the western suburbs of Melbourne. There is, however, a campus of Monash University within spitting distance of Leawarra Station which has been there for a very long time. As a student at Monash Peninsula I would love to see trains run every fifteen minutes to Baxter to serve that area of Frankston - it would make a huge difference to the students attending Monash who either rely on a horribly infrequent Stony Point service or buses at Frankston.

Victoria University Campuses - note, electrification to Melton and Sunbury would directly benefit this University given that two of its campuses are in Melton and Sunbury. A more frequent train service out to the west would be fantastic.

Monash Uni. Peninsula Campus - note, the campus transport information page makes no mention of the Stony Point line at Leawarra Station despite it being 200 meters from the back gate. This is unfortunate but not unexpected. Who would want to rely on a train that runs every two hours?

As for the West, my only opinion is that electrification to Melton is long overdue. Given that Melton (and Bacchus Marsh) have comparable distances from the city as stations on the Pakenham line, it is strange to think that the train service frequencies are no where like what they are in the east of the city.
A new common phrase for public transport: "If only..."
jdekorte
ERD Union Delegate
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:13 pm
Location: A transport mecca at Caulfield

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby Mount Sirfeel » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:58 pm

The suggestion of a spark depot at Baxter was as an alternitive to the depot being built at Newport.

Any way back to Bacchus Marsh's side of the city
User avatar
Mount Sirfeel
ERD Union Delegate
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:58 pm
Location: Newport / Williamstown

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby Bravus » Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:40 am

Mount Sirfeel wrote:The suggestion of a spark depot at Baxter was as an alternitive to the depot being built at Newport.

Any way back to Bacchus Marsh's side of the city


Yes, and Baxter would then get electric services. It's not like the idea was to ever just put a depot at Baxter but not run services on the track that now has overhead on it.
The opinions in this post are my own, and in no way affiliated with my employer unless expressly stated otherwise.[/size]
User avatar
Bravus
Manager Rail Operations
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: In the vicinity of a level crossing.

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby Mount Sirfeel » Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:18 pm

What's the latest RBTU rules regarding electric trains oparating over new electrified level crossings ?
User avatar
Mount Sirfeel
ERD Union Delegate
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:58 pm
Location: Newport / Williamstown

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby kuldalai » Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:03 pm

IIRC the issue existing line level crossings OK . Re-open a line (as beyond Epping) or build a new railway (Deer Park West - Manor) and the Policy is no level crossings. The method of traction is irrelevant in this context .
kuldalai
Station Officer
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:41 pm

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby Bravus » Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:47 am

kuldalai wrote:IIRC the issue existing line level crossings OK . Re-open a line (as beyond Epping) or build a new railway (Deer Park West - Manor) and the Policy is no level crossings. The method of traction is irrelevant in this context .


Not quite. I believe it's a case of "If an electric train hasn't run over the crossing, then it must be grade sepped". I.E. the electrification to Sunbury involves a number of grade separations.
The opinions in this post are my own, and in no way affiliated with my employer unless expressly stated otherwise.[/size]
User avatar
Bravus
Manager Rail Operations
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: In the vicinity of a level crossing.

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby BLOCKO » Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:56 am

Has nothing to do with sparks passing over a crossing. Goverment policy is no new level crossings.

R.T.B.U. has a 20/20 policy

Not aware of any grade separation for the Sunbury works.
BLOCKO
Commissioners' Secretary
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:11 pm

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby Bravus » Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:27 pm

BLOCKO wrote:Has nothing to do with sparks passing over a crossing. Goverment policy is no new level crossings.

R.T.B.U. has a 20/20 policy

Not aware of any grade separation for the Sunbury works.


What is a "20/20" policy?
The opinions in this post are my own, and in no way affiliated with my employer unless expressly stated otherwise.[/size]
User avatar
Bravus
Manager Rail Operations
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: In the vicinity of a level crossing.

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby Mount Sirfeel » Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:49 pm

Bravus wrote:
kuldalai wrote:IIRC the issue existing line level crossings OK . Re-open a line (as beyond Epping) or build a new railway (Deer Park West - Manor) and the Policy is no level crossings. The method of traction is irrelevant in this context .


Not quite. I believe it's a case of "If an electric train hasn't run over the crossing, then it must be grade sepped". I.E. the electrification to Sunbury involves a number of grade separations.


That Is why Somerton Road (Somerton) was grade separated before Craigiburn services could start running.
User avatar
Mount Sirfeel
ERD Union Delegate
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:58 pm
Location: Newport / Williamstown

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby xtrapolis954m » Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:55 pm

Mount Sirfeel wrote:
Bravus wrote:
kuldalai wrote:IIRC the issue existing line level crossings OK . Re-open a line (as beyond Epping) or build a new railway (Deer Park West - Manor) and the Policy is no level crossings. The method of traction is irrelevant in this context .


Not quite. I believe it's a case of "If an electric train hasn't run over the crossing, then it must be grade sepped". I.E. the electrification to Sunbury involves a number of grade separations.


That Is why Somerton Road (Somerton) was grade separated before Craigiburn services could start running.


That was going to happen one year after the commencement of electric services. This would create further disruption to both road & rail users, so the decision was made to bite the bullet & do it earlier.

Cheers, Lachlan.
This monster has one eye on the world, the other on itself. A third watching you looking at it. All staring in disbeleif. It's name? NEWSTOPIA.
User avatar
xtrapolis954m
Parliamentary Secretary for Transport
 
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:48 am
Location: HBE

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby BLOCKO » Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:34 am

Bravus wrote:
BLOCKO wrote:Has nothing to do with sparks passing over a crossing. Goverment policy is no new level crossings.

R.T.B.U. has a 20/20 policy

Not aware of any grade separation for the Sunbury works.


What is a "20/20" policy?


A signal 20 metres from the end of a platform then a further 20 metres from the signal to the level crossing.

The overpass at Somerton was seriously proposed in the mid 80s due to the volume of road traffic and the time the crossing was closed with rail traffic.

The amount of road traffic has increased significantly with housing, industry and the road as a through route.

Grade separation is not a requirement for sparks to run!!
BLOCKO
Commissioners' Secretary
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:11 pm

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby wongm » Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:32 am

Bravus wrote:
kuldalai wrote:IIRC the issue existing line level crossings OK . Re-open a line (as beyond Epping) or build a new railway (Deer Park West - Manor) and the Policy is no level crossings. The method of traction is irrelevant in this context .


Not quite. I believe it's a case of "If an electric train hasn't run over the crossing, then it must be grade sepped". I.E. the electrification to Sunbury involves a number of grade separations.

A mention was made of the Sunbury works in this thread:
http://www.vicsig.net/forums/viewtopic. ... 479#p30479

In short, the crossings are staying, as the tender documents state the LX approach circuitry needs to be modified due to the present of traction current.
User avatar
wongm
VR Commissioner
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:48 pm
Location: Geelong, Victoria

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby BLOCKO » Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:02 am

wongm wrote:
Bravus wrote:
kuldalai wrote:IIRC the issue existing line level crossings OK . Re-open a line (as beyond Epping) or build a new railway (Deer Park West - Manor) and the Policy is no level crossings. The method of traction is irrelevant in this context .


Not quite. I believe it's a case of "If an electric train hasn't run over the crossing, then it must be grade sepped". I.E. the electrification to Sunbury involves a number of grade separations.

A mention was made of the Sunbury works in this thread:
http://www.vicsig.net/forums/viewtopic. ... 479#p30479

In short, the crossings are staying, as the tender documents state the LX approach circuitry needs to be modified due to the present of traction current.


Currently the crossings are predictor types set for running up and down directions on both the up and down lines.

These systems must be chaged as they are currently not compatible with traction running.
BLOCKO
Commissioners' Secretary
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:11 pm

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby Bravus » Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:11 pm

BLOCKO wrote:Currently the crossings are predictor types set for running up and down directions on both the up and down lines.

These systems must be chaged as they are currently not compatible with traction running.



Which is a bit stupid, given that Sparks drivers get trained how to treat LX Predictor Boards!
The opinions in this post are my own, and in no way affiliated with my employer unless expressly stated otherwise.[/size]
User avatar
Bravus
Manager Rail Operations
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: In the vicinity of a level crossing.

Re: RRL - is duplication to Bacchus Marsh included ?

Postby BLOCKO » Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:15 pm

Bravus wrote:
BLOCKO wrote:Currently the crossings are predictor types set for running up and down directions on both the up and down lines.

These systems must be chaged as they are currently not compatible with traction running.



Which is a bit stupid, given that Sparks drivers get trained how to treat LX Predictor Boards!


Its an electronic thing not a Driver thing. Predictors cannot work properly with the overhead system!!!
BLOCKO
Commissioners' Secretary
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:11 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Infrastructure and Signalling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest