At the station

We start in 1960, with Weston Langford standing on platform 2 and 3. Cars still had to use a level crossing, but a timber footbridge allowed pedestrians to avoid waiting for passing trains.

Weston Langford photo

The Hampshire Road overpass was completed in 1961, but the scene at Sunshine staying much the same for decades – this was the scene in 2012 when my heritage train passed through on the way around the suburbs.

But the Regional Rail Link project changed it up again, replacing the pedestrian underpass with a massive new overhead concourse, and adding an additional platform for the use of V/Line trains.

And the HV McKay Footbridge

In this 1977 Weston Langford photo the view south from the footbridge was sparse – railway sidings for the Sunshine Harvester Works dominating the foreground.

Weston Langford photo

But following the closure of the factory in the 1990s central Sunshine was redeveloped, and in my 2010 view gum trees had taken over the George Cross reserve on the other side of the tracks.

But Regional Rail Link also changed this scene – a new footbridge, and two new tracks beneath it for the use of V/Line trains.

And the next chapter?

Work is about to start on the Melbourne Airport Rail Link, with some changes coming for Sunshine – a tangle of new track between Sunshine and Albion, and a new station concourse at the city end.

A shadow of the ‘super hub’ once promoted by the State Government, but change none the less.

Post retrieved by 37.59.21.100 using Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.66 Safari/537.36

The post Then and now at Sunshine station appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

SLV photo H2001.308/2928

Work kicks off

Large scale removal of level crossings in Melbourne kicked off in the early 20th century, when thirteen level crossings between South Yarra and Caulfield were grade separated in 1909-15, as part of the regrading and quadruplication of the railway.

Nine level crossings between Hawthorn and Camberwell were removed in 1915-19 when that section of railway was regraded.

The Queens Parade tramway crossing on route 86 at Clifton Hill was replaced by a bridge in 1925.

As was the Epsom Road tramway crossing on route 57 in Ascot Vale.

And finally, four level crossings between Footscray and West Footscray were removed in 1926-28 in conjunction with track amplification works, including the Geelong Road bridge.

VPRS 12800/ P3 unit 13, item ADV 0138

But more work was still needed

In 1929 the Metropolitan Town Planning Commission published their ‘Plan of General Development‘ for Melbourne, with their scheme for new roads intended to reduce the need for level crossings.

Associated with the main roads scheme is the important question of the relationship of railway level crossings to it. In planning the roads scheme, due consideration has been given to those thoroughfares which at present pass under or over the railway lines.

In the location of new thoroughfares care has to be taken, where contours are favourable, to plan the crossing of the railway where there is a cutting or an embankment, so that the crossing in the future by bridge or subway could be effected at a minimum of cost.

Where the traffic from areas on the side of a railway more remote from a defined main road has been compelled to cross the railway at many places, intercepting main routes have been planned in favourable instances so as to avoid extensive or unnecessary movement across the railway.

In other cases the arrangement of minor streets has been planned so that a greater use will be made of the defined crossings. They can then be fewer in number and still provide the same facility for vehicular traffic. The ends of safety and economy are thereby served.

But there would still be dozens of level crossings left behind.

Within that portion of the metropolitan area dealt with by the Commission there are 155 level crossings. The main roads, as planned by the Commission, and which would give reasonably direct access between all parts of the metropolitan area, necessitate the use of 55 level crossings, and in addition eleven occur on tramline streets not in the main roads schedule.

So they flagged a program of level crossing removal.

Therefore, in any systematic scheme of railway level crossings abolition, it appears to be desirable to concentrate on the 66 crossings which would be on main traffic or tramline streets.

Expanding works that the Railways Department had already started.

Wherever the Railway Department has undertaken the construction of new metropolitan lines during recent years, or has been engaged on extensive remodellings, it has endeavoured to avoid level crossings.

The Railway Department is to be highly commended for the expense it has incurred, and the installations it has made in a variety of ways, with a view to making these crossings safe for all but the most reckless people.

The Railway Department for the five years 1923-27 expended £177,000 on level crossings abolition. Approximately 75 per cent of this amount was spent in the metropolitan area, and is therefore equivalent to an annual expenditure of over £26,000.

But there was one problem – money!

The amounts contributed by other authorities have not been ascertained, but it is expected that they would at least equal the average annual expenditure by the Railway Department. The total amount that would be available might therefore be set down at £50,000 annually, the capitalised value of which at a rate of 5.5 per cent, would enable a loan of over £900,000 to be devoted to this work, the repayment of which should be spread over 20, 30, or more years.

The scope of work was massive.

Sums from £1,000,000 to £2,000,000 have been mentioned by the Railway Department as the probable cost of the abolition of the 290 level crossings in the metropolitan electrified area. The Commission’s scheme would obviously require much less expenditure, as only 66 crossings would be involved to free the defined main roads and tramway routes from the delays and dangers that are brought about where the roads and railways cross each other on the same level.

And there was the question of who would foot the bill.

The question of the allocation of the costs and contributions is no doubt the most vital aspect of this very difficult problem.

Authorities have claimed that as the Railway Department has had the preferential right over the level crossings for many years,the accumulated value of the savings in original construction warrants placing the responsibility of abolition almost wholly upon the Railway Department.

Conversely, the Department has claimed that if the local governing authorities were offered at the time of construction the choice between no railway or a line containing level crossings, they would gladly have chosen the latter.

Another point of view is that it is only since the extraordinary growth of motor transport that a condition of things which previously was more or less satisfactory to both parties has now become such a nuisance and a hazard. A study of official opinions and decisions abroad shows the same divergence of views.

The Metropolitan Town Planning Commission believed the cost should be shared, but raised other concerns.

Except where extensive regradings become essential from the point of view of railway working, it is unreasonable to throw the whole responsibility on to the Railways Commissioners for the abolition of nearly 300 crossings. Several of them will cost in the vicinity of £100,000 each.

The electrification of the lines has rendered any improvement in the grades of the lines less necessary, whilst the cost of regrading in conjunction with a maintenance of frequent services makes any such wholesale proposition financially impracticable.

Quoting a contemporary report on a proposed level crossing removal.

In its Special Report to the Minister of Railways, supplied at his request, in regard to the abolition of the Clifton Hill level crossing on Heidelberg Road, the following opinions were given in reference to the allocation of cost:

23. The Commission considers that the principal party concerned in all level crossings is the Railways Commissioners, and that theirs is the greater financial responsibility for the abolition of them. It is the Commission’s opinion that, although the Railway Department should not have to bear the whole cost, it certainly should be required to contribute substantially.

24. The Heidelberg Road and the other roads converging at this point are all arterial in character, and consequently the municipality in which the crossing is located should not be called upon to meet an undue proportion of the cost of providing an improved thoroughfare which obviously will be used by traffic foreign to Collingwood in a much greater degree than that which can be regarded as local.

26. As the roads will be used almost wholly by motor vehicles it is recommended that a substantial contribution towards the cost should be made from the motor registration fees, which are now devoted almost wholly to country roads.

And proposed what they saw as a just way of allocating costs.

It is recommended that a single Transport Authority would have this matter of level crossings referred to it for decision as to the allocation of costs. The Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board and any other public authority directly concerned in a particular crossing should be assessed for a just share. The wide distribution of the costs suggested should be the means of expediting the abolition of the most urgent of these crossings.

And things we are yet to do

Unlike today’s politically motivated Level Crossing Removal Project, the Metropolitan Town Planning Commission saw the need for a orderly plan for the removal of level crossings, looking at the road network as a whole.

The order of abolition of the 66 level crossings should necessarily be determined by their urgency, and it is suggested that a factor which combines the number and classification of vehicles with the duration of delays at crossings should be used in deciding the precedence.

It is believed that the adoption of a systematic scheme dealing with this important problem would enable the diversion of traffic into these crossings of the railways with separated grades, and probably permit of the closing of the least important level ones.

The Commission’s schemes for roads in the area to be served by the Darling to Glen Waverley and Doncaster lines illustrate how a greater use can be made of fewer crossings of the line, while at the same time preserving reasonable access between lands on each side of it.

Including a redesign of surrounding road networks to reduce the number of level crossings that needed to be grade separated.

One of the factors that has contributed to the large number of level crossings in existence is the fact that the Railway Department possesses inadequate powers for the acquisition of land. It is considered that if the Department had power, subject to any necessary safeguards to acquire more land than is immediately necessary for railway purposes, it would be enabled in many instances to provide one crossing which would serve two or more cross streets by the diversion of certain streets at suitable places, with consequent saving in cost. The Commission is convinced that, by judicious planning and adequate legislative powers, it should be, possible to reduce the number of level crossings, the abolition of which would require heavy expenditure in the construction of subways or bridges.

So what happened?

Following the publication of the Plan of General Development in 1929, grade separation of level crossings stalled for three decades, with a grand total of ZERO crossings abolished.

It took until the 1954 passing of the ‘Country Roads and Level Crossings Funds Act’ for work to be restarted, which saw twenty level crossings in Melbourne grade separated between 1958 and 1977, as well as a larger number of crossings in country Victoria.

Museum Victoria item MM 92947

After the dedicated fund for level crossing removals was wound up, another twenty crossings were removed as standalone road projects in the period 1978-2014, until the launch of the Level Crossing Removal Project in 2015.

Post retrieved by 37.59.21.100 using Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.66 Safari/537.36

The post Level crossing removals in 1920s Melbourne appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Trouble on the tracks

V/Line has a major issue with inaccessible trains.

Ray, Warnambool: In my area, it’s almost impossible to use the V/Line in a wheelchair. Even when I book I can get to the railway station and find there is no accessible carriage. Why are people with disabilities stuck in a #LifelongLockdown we fought to end last century? #PWD pic.twitter.com/A1Dz6P65ok

— Voices of DRC Advocacy (@DRCadvocacy) May 14, 2020

With thousands of dollars spent in 2018 calling up accessible taxis to transport passengers unable to board inaccessible trains.

Two north-east Victorian residents have claimed V/Line regularly pays more than $1,000 for return taxi trips to Melbourne due to train and coach services being wheelchair inaccessible.

Albury-based Luke Sefton said V/Line had recently arranged a taxi for at least three return trips to Melbourne.

“If there’s more than two wheelchairs they tell you the train’s full and you can’t get a ticket. If it’s not running you’ve got to get a taxi and they pay the money for that — maybe $700 or more, one way,” he said.

But Mr Sefton said V/Line would sometimes turn him away.

“I’ve called up a few times and there’s only two [people with wheelchairs] allowed on there and they say ‘we’ve sold out today’,” he said.

“In that case they don’t get you a taxi either, they just say they’ve sold out.”

The chair of The Victorian Disability Advisory Council, Colleen Furlanetto, said she had used replacement taxi services from Euroa and Seymour more than a dozen times at a cost to V/Line of around $300 each way.

Ms Furlanetto said she felt guilty depriving local residents of a wheelchair accessible service whenever V/Line arranged a taxi for her to Melbourne.

But this tale from the Warrnambool line really takes the cake.

In May 2019 Janet and Susan, who use wheelchairs, decided to travel from Melbourne to Warrnambool on V/Line trains.

For both it was a work-related visit, they were attending a forum hosted by All Abilities Advocacy and supported by Warrnambool City Council’s Rural Access program.

Janet, after first checking with V/Line, booked a first class ticket in order to sit next to colleagues. On May 14 when she arrived at the Southern Cross platform she was advised she could not sit next to her colleagues and was segregated.

On the way to Warrnambool she received a call from V/Line advising that the return booking was not an accessible service and she was requested to use an earlier train. This was not possible because Susan would still be at the forum.

On May 15, at 12.30pm, both women were contacted by V/Line and informed that the accessible carriage was not available. They had no alternative means of returning home to Melbourne.

V/Line asked Susan if she could leave her wheelchair in the conductor’s area and sit down, which she had been required to do on the trip to Warrnambool. Susan said this did not work properly and she needed her wheelchair with her.

V/Line advised Janet and Susan they return to Melbourne in separate taxis with the bill of about $1200 to be covered by taxpayers.

At 5pm Janet and Susan arrived at the Warrnambool Station to catch the taxis back to Melbourne.

They then discovered the disabled toilet at Warrnambool Railway Station was not accessible. The toilet was behind swinging doors and at the end of two cubicles for ambulatory people. The room was narrow with insufficient space for a wheelchair to turn into the “accessible” cubicle.

When the taxi arrived, V/Line initially wanted Janet and Susan to share a ride home – impossible given the size of their two wheelchairs. With the insistence of a support person V/Line eventually called a second taxi.

So why are V/Line trains so dysfunctional?

In the beginning

Back in the ‘good old days’ accessible public transport wasn’t a concern.

Photo by Weston Langford

Country carriages consisted of a series of small compartments, located through narrow doorways at the end of skinny corridors.

Later carriages dumped compartments for open saloons, but the narrow doorways and end vestibules remained.

The last of these carriages entered serivce in the 1980s, and are still in service today.

The only space for wheelchairs and mobility aids being the luggage van.

But the area cannot be used by passengers.

Customers are not permitted to travel in the conductor’s van on locomotive–hauled services, unless you are travelling between an unstaffed station and a staffed station where alternative transport will be arranged. You can store your mobility aid in the conductor’s van if you are able to move to a seat in the carriage.

Dumb luck from the 1980s

In the 1980s the New Deal for Country Passengers saw the retirement of clapped out non-air conditioned timber bodied carriages, replacing them by retired suburban trains refurbished for country use.

Photo by Weston Langford

These carriages are still in use today on on commuter services, and have wide doors thanks to their suburban heritage, providing easy access for wheelchairs and mobility aids.

But only ‘normal’ toilets were installed, with no accessible toilet access provided – so you’re on your own.

Enter the Disability Discrimination Act

In 1992 the Disability Discrimination Act was passed, right in the middle of the procurement process for the ‘Sprinter‘ railcar fleet.

They were built with doors wide enough for wheelchairs and mobility aids, allocated spaces to park them, and an accessible toilet.

However the provision of luggage areas in the doorway limited the number of mobility aids that could be parked inside each carriage – a problem not resolved until a 2018 refit.

Now to play catchup – and one big problem

With an existing fleet of carriages that were inaccessible to many passengers, in 1995 V/Line commenced the ‘BZN’ carriage program. Each converted carriage has a wider door at one end, accessible to mobility aids.

With a disabled toilet and allocated parking area inside.

These newly converted carriages were then coupled onto their fixed 3-car locomotive hauled sets, which solved the accessibility problem – provided that a train was more than three carriages long.

A constraint that bit V/Line in the arse in 2013, after bogie cracks were discovered beneath the accessible carriages.

V/Line played down the impact of the problem.

Public Transport Victoria said today that V/Line had decided to immediately remove 22 of its older carriages from service for testing and repairs.

V/Line decided to remove the carriages from service following a safety audit which revealed fatigue cracks in some critical areas of the ‘bogies’ or undercarriages of ‘Z’ class carriages.

Shepparton, Warrnambool, Swan Hill, Bairnsdale, and a small number of Geelong and Traralgon trains will have fewer seats while this essential work is carried out, so road coaches will be made available when necessary.

V/Line trains have a total of 70,000 seats each weekday and the withdrawal of these carriages involves less than 10 per cent of seats, not all of which are occupied. Most of the affected trains will operate with four carriages instead of five.

But the reality was different for anyone with special needs.

A fleet-wide audit has been called on V/Line’s ‘Z’ class carriages; the only carriages on Bairnsdale services with wide enough doorways to allow mobility vehicles on board.

While V/line spokesperson Clare Steele said some “narrow” wheelchairs may still fit through the doors on remaining Bairnsdale carriages, most people with mobility needs were being urged to phone V/Line to order multi-purpose taxis 24 hours in advance.

A total of 22 carriages were impacted by the bogie cracks, with 13 returned to service by 30 June 2014, the last finally fixed by the end of 2016.

So close, but still not quite

And now to V/Line’s newest trains – the VLocity railcars. The first of which entered serivce in 2005, and on paper ticked all of the accessibility boxes – wide doors, allocated spaces for mobility aids, and an accessible toilet – but they still managed to miss the mark!

With overcomplicated toilet doors that could not be used by the visually impaired.

Eventually fixed by an even more complicated system in 2017.

And doorways not quite wide enough for easy manoeuvring of mobility aids.

From 2016 the handrails beside the wheelchair access door were modified to provide more space.

A change that required the removing the crew access to ground level!

With the problem not resolved properly until 2019, when they made the doorway itself wider.

This change is now being applied to all new-build VLocity trains, but cannot to be retrofitted to the first 75 VLocity trains without a massive amount of work, which just goes to prove – get it right the first time!

Further reading

V/Line has more information about accessibility on their website, with their 2019-2022 Accessibility Action Plan detailing where they aim to improve in the next three years.

Post retrieved by 37.59.21.100 using Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.66 Safari/537.36

The post V/Line’s sorry history of inaccessible trains appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The very early years

The story of ramps versus stairs starts with Melbourne’s first railways. Built to link country Victoria with the markets of the growing metropolis, railways were built on the cheap – tracks laid at ground level and level crossings where roads crossed the tracks.

Stations were also simple affairs – a pair of platforms with two tracks running through the middle, and a single station building on the city bound platform. Bridges over or under the tracks were rare, only being built in conjunction with cuttings through hills or embankments over valleys, which eased the grades for trains to climb.

Yarraville station is an early example. Opened in 1871 beside the Anderson Street level crossing.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 4836

Passengers accessed the platforms via the existing street network, but had to cross the tracks via the level crossing.

There were few exceptions to this configuration – one being South Yarra, which opened to passengers in 1860. Located north of the Toorak Road overbridge, platforms flanked the two tracks, with steps linking the two.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 1123

In the early years even the central stations of Flinders Street, Princes Bridge and Spencer Street didn’t have ramps or stairs – as terminal stations each track formed a dead end, with nothing to prevent ground level access between platform and street.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 1109

But once the tracks linking Flinders Street Station to Spencer Street Station were completed in 1891, the question of having to cross the tracks at major stations emerged. A preference for ramps instead of stairs appears to have emerged early on, as this 1905 photo of the original Flinders Street Station shows.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 2770

The Railway Inquiry Board in 1895 saw the ramps linking platforms at Flinders Street Station as inconvenient, with the Victorian Railways Engineer for Existing Lines, Charles E. Norman, being questioned by the chairperson over it.

1589. Can you name any station in a city, even down to 10,000 people, in any of the other colonies, where you have to go up ramps and along an uncovered bridge to catch another train?

I cannot name such a station at present.

But they just didn’t get the reason why the ramps were needed.

1595. You have read of the stations in London?

Yes.

1596. I do not know of any one there except South Kensington where you have to climb up bridges and so on?

Nearly all their large stations are terminals, and the trains arrive at what are called “dead ends,” and they go out again from the same place in the same direction that they came in. Our Flinders Street Station is a through traffic station, that is to say, the train from Essendon at present runs through Flinders Street Station to Brighton, and it is intended that a good many more trains shall run through in future.

1597. I can quite understand an underground railway such as the Metropolitan District Railway in London necessitating people going down stairs and upstairs to get to the railway line; but in a railway that is on the surface of the earth, I do not understand it?

But wherever there is more than one platform, there must be some means for the passengers to cross the rails.

Once planning commenced for the present day Flinders Street Station in the late 1890s, a debate about crossing over the tracks via bridge or subway emerged, with Deputy Traffic Manager William Francis Fitzpatrick being questioned about the planned station.

I think myself that a subway, on the whole, is the best, chiefly for these reasons – I am now speaking with regard to the comfort of the traveller; in the first place it is conceded on all sides that the greatest comfort to the traveller is to take him on the level. Next to that, bridges on that station will be very unpleasant places, owing to the large number of locomotives that will be passing to and fro, owing to the smoke and smell from them, and one thing and another.

Then the question of whether it is easier to mount a ramp or go down the same height on steps is one that I am too young and active a man to settle, but, bearing in mind what little experience we have had, in that direction at several suburban places where we have subways, they lead to no complaint, and I think, on the whole, they are preferable, that is from the point of view of the travellers’ convenience.

But the merits of ramps versus stairs was also debated. Victoria Railways Engineer for Existing Lines, Charles E. Norman, gave this reasoning when questioned by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways in 1899.

The central subway it is proposed to have approached by steps from all the platforms, because ramps would take up too much length of the platforms. The gradient is 1 in 10, and the length of the ramp about 136 feet. If a lift is found to be a necessity it can always be added; ramps are far easier and safer for old people than steps.

Little did these engineers know, but their opinions on station design were to hold sway for many decades.

Transformation into a suburban railway

The start of the 20th Century was also the start of work to transform the Melbourne railway system from a handful of lines leading into the country, into a modern electric suburban railway.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P4, item RS 1855

The current Flinders Street Station building was built between 1900 and 1910, with ramps chosen as the main access to the platforms from Swanston and Elizabeth Streets, but with stairs to the central subway due to space limitations.

Footscray station was rebuilt in 1901, with a timber footbridge provided to link the four platforms at this important junction station.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P3, item ADV 1353

As part of quadruplication and regrading of the track between South Yarra and Caulfield completed in 1914, new low level stations were built at Malvern, Armidale, Toorak and Hawksburn. Footbridges carried passengers across the sunken tracks, with ramps leading down to the platforms.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P3, item ADV 1357

The tracks between Hawthorn and Camberwell were also regraded during the same period, with new stations at Glenferrie and Auburn completed in 1916. Access was at ground level under the elevated tracks, with ramps taking passengers up to the platforms.

The facilities for suburban passengers at Spencer Street Station were also upgraded between 1918 and 1924 with the addition of platforms 11 though 14, linked to the main concourse via ramps to a new pedestrian subway.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 1508

New stations built during this same period took into account the increased number of suburban trains now running in Melbourne.

Ripponlea, opened 1912 shortly before electrification of the Sandringham line, followed the previous practice of two platforms flanking the tracks next to a level crossing, but added an overhead footbridge to allow able bodied passengers to avoid the closed gates.

Similar works were completed at existing stations to make life easier for pedestrians stuck at level crossings – such as this pedestrian underpass beside the Koornang Road level crossing at Carnegie station.

This footbridge at Westgarth station.

And the pedestrian subway at Blackburn, built in 1928.

A pedestrian subway is in course of construction at Blackburn. This will be completed shortly, and the necessity for passengers to cross the running tracks will then be obviated.

A few early grade separation projects were also carried out, such as the rebuilding of Middle Footscray station in 1928, which was provided with ramps for passenger access.

The railways then entered a long period of underinvestment, thanks to World War II and the rise of the motor vehicle.

One of the projects that ended this malaise was the rebuilding of Richmond station in 1952-1960. Ten platforms were provided, linked at each end to a pedestrian subway via ramps, as well an additional centre subway via stairs.

A boom of grade separation projects from the late 1950s also saw the upgrade of many stations. Moorabbin station was lowered into a trench in 1959, with a footbridge carried passengers across the sunken tracks, with ramps leading down to the platform.

Another rebuild was Albion station in 1961 as part of the Melbourne-Sydney standard gauge railway project. The Ballarat Road level crossing was replaced with a bridge and the pair of side platforms were replaced by the current island platform, with a subway passing beneath the tracks, with a ramp leading to platform level.

The same island platform and pedestrian subway design was applied at Ruthven, opened in 1963.

Tottenham, rebuilt in 1981 as an elevated station to remove the Ashley Street level crossing.

And Werribee, rebuilt in 1983 with the extension of suburban services.

But a different design was applied at Yarraman – a new station opened on the Dandenong line in 1976. A single island platform between the tracks was still used, but here a concrete footbridge over the tracks was provided, with three long ramps linking each side to the street, as well as to the platform.

It took the construction of the City Loop in the 1980s to bring the first escalators and lifts to a Melbourne railway station – but given the stations were up to 40 metres below the surface, ramps or stairs were out of the question.

This was followed in 1983-1985 by the rebuilding of sleepy little Box Hill station into a modern transport interchange. Escalators and lifts featured, but the station was still not completely accessible – steep ramps were the only wheeled route to platforms 1 and 4.

It took until 1992 for accessibility to finally be taken seriously, when the Commonwealth Government passed the Disability Discrimination Act, with the aim to eliminate discrimination ‘as far as possible’ against people with disabilities.

Since then, all upgraded railway stations in Melbourne have had accessibility built into their design, with varying measures of success.

How steep are the ramps anyway?

The gradient of a ramp is given as rise over run – for example a 1 in 20 gradient rises 1 metre for every 20 metres of horizontal distance.

Over at the State Library Victoria historical Victorian building regulations can be found, with the ‘Uniform Building Regulations’ 1945 having this to say about ramps:

2716. Ramps

(a) Ramps may be substituted for stairways provided they conform to such of the requirements of this chapter for stairways as are applicable.
(b) Ramps shall be in straight lengths with a landing at each change of direction having a length and a width at least equal to the width of the ramp.
(c) Ramps serving as exits or giving access to exits shall have a slope not greater than 1 in 8.
(d) Ramps used for purposes other than exit travel shall not be limited as to gradient.
(e) Ramps shall be provided with an approved non-slip surface.

1 in 8 is a pretty steep grade – which seems to match the ramps found at older railway stations in Melbourne.

But these ramps were an optional extra – it took the ‘Public Building Regulations’ 1958 to make the provision of ramps mandatory, at least in public buildings, and where it wasn’t inconvenient to do so.

Provided that unless impracticable, at least one exit in every new building shall be provided with an incline or ramp at a grade not steeper than 1 in 8 from door-sill to ground level.

It took until 1992 for the Commonwealth Government passed the Disability Discrimination Act, aiming to to eliminate discrimination ‘as far as possible’ against people with disabilities.

Section 23 set out ‘access to premises used by the public‘, with the technical details codified under the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (DSPART) of 2002 and Australian Standard AS1428.1

These state that 1 in 14 is the maximum gradient allowed for a ramp – half as steep as ramps built in the past.

So how did these accessibility regulations change the way railway stations were built in Melbourne? That is a story for part two!

Further reading

Daniel Bowen has a piece titled “Step-free” doesn’t mean DDA – compliant which starts on the topic of ramps, and then details the ways that inadequate information about station accessibility makes life difficult for people trying to plan a journey.

For those interested in more of the early history of Melbourne’s railways, The History Of The Victorian Railways by Robert Lee (2009) is well worth the read, tying the railway story back to the development of the state as a whole.

Sources

The “Step free access at all stations except Heyington” note on the Victorian rail network map can be found here:

Here is the full text of Victorian Railways Engineer for Existing Lines, Charles E. Norman, being questioned by the Railway Inquiry Board in 1895 regarding the ramps linking platforms at Flinders Street Station.

The Railway Inquiry Board : report of the Board to Inquire into the Working and Management of the Victorian Railways
14th May 1895

1589. Can you name any station in a city, even down to 10,000 people, in any of the other colonies, where you have to go up ramps and along an uncovered bridge to catch another train?

I cannot name such a station at present. The uncovered part is only part of the incompleteness.

1590. I need not tell you the ordinary passenger does not want to have to climb stairs and go along bridges and down ramps if he can avoid it; Can you name any station in the whole of Australia (we asked one Commissioner if he could name one in the rest of the world) where a station was so inconvenient as the Flinders Street one?

Certainly. If I were to cudgel my brains sufficiently I could think of stations quite as inconvenient as this. I cannot think of one at the minute.

1591. Do you not think in a city such as this, with a population of 500,000, and where we are catering for the suburban traffic, that the least possible inconvenience that we can put in the way of ordinary travellers is what we should aim at ?

Yes.

1592. Take Spencer Street; you walk in on a level road, and go to any platform you require without having to go up steps?

You cannot do that now that there is a bridge from Spencer Street. You cannot go to the suburban platform in Spencer Street without going over a bridge.

1593. The old way the Spencer Street station was you could do it?

That was before the suburban traffic was carried through.

1594. At Princes Bridge it is the same, and you can get out of any train from there. That being so, do you think it wise that you concentrate the bulk of your traffic in a station where you have to walk up steps and so on ?

It is unavoidable to have a foot-bridge or subway where you have to provide for through trains. The passengers must cross overhead or underneath.

1595. You have read of the stations in London?

Yes.

1596. I do not know of any one there except South Kensington where you have to climb up bridges and so on?

Nearly all their large stations are terminals, and the trains arrive at what are called “dead ends,” and they go out again from the same place in the same direction that they came in. Our Flinders Street Station is a through traffic station, that is to say, the train from Essendon at present runs through Flinders Street Station to Brighton, and it is intended that a good many more trains shall run through in future.

1597. I can quite understand an underground railway such as the Metropolitan District Railway in London necessitating people going down stairs and upstairs to get to the railway line; but in a railway that is on the surface of the earth, I do not understand it?

But wherever there is more than one platform, there must be some means for the passengers to cross the rails.

Victorian Railways Deputy Traffic Manager William Francis Fitzpatrick being questioned by Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways in 1896 on the merits of bridges or subways for pedestrian access at railway stations.

Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways on the Plan for New Railway Station at Flinders Street
1st April 1896

781. With reference to bridges or subways, which are the most convenient?

I think that is largely a matter of opinion.

782. I mean, convenient for you, as Traffic Manager, wanting to give the travellers every convenience to induce them to travel by the trains ?

I think myself that a subway, on the whole, is the best, chiefly for these reasons – I am now speaking with regard to the comfort of the traveller; in the first place it is conceded ou all sides that the greatest comfort to the traveller is to take him on the level. Next to that, bridges on that station will be very unpleasant places, owing to the large number of locomotives that will be passing to and fro, owing to the smoke and smell from them, and one thing and another.

Then the question of whether it is easier to mount a ramp or go down the same height on steps is one that I am too young and active a man to settle, but, bearing in mind what little experience we have had, in that direction at several suburban places where we have subways, they lead to no complaint, and I think, on the whole, they are preferable, that is from the point of view of the travellers’ convenience.

And Victoria Railways Engineer for Existing Lines, Charles E. Norman, being questioned by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways in 1899 on the ramps at the new Flinders Street Station.

Progress report from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways on the proposed Central Railway Station at Flinders Street
21st February 1899

27. How will the people get up and down?

The central subway it is proposed to have approached by steps from all the platforms, because ramps would take up too much length of the platforms.

379. What is the width of the first ramp?

10 feet, the second 10 feet, the third 10 feet. The gradient is 1 in 10, and the length of the ramp about 136 feet. The first is not quite so long, it is 120 feet. The present ramps, I believe are 1 in 10, but they may be 1 in 8. we have a ramp leading from the Swanston street footbridge to each platform, we have five ramps altogether.

380. Do you propose that they shall all walk?

Yes. Of course if a lift is found to be a necessity it can always be added; ramps are far easier and safer for old people than steps.

Post retrieved by 37.59.21.100 using Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.66 Safari/537.36

The post Why Melbourne built ramps not stairs at railway stations appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Last year Melbourne newspaper The Age wrote about a council survey of residents in Richmond and Fitzroy who lived near public housing estates:

Separate lives on our housing estates
November 27, 2012
Miki Perkins

Overwhelmingly, residents at the Richmond estate and those living nearby were concerned about the effect drug use had on the area’s safety. Residents told the council’s researchers the playgrounds were raked every day to remove needles, and women living nearby avoided walking on or near the estates.

”I don’t like my children to go into the gardens. There are people there I don’t trust and needles that will harm them,” said a Richmond estate resident quoted in the report.

Only two in five people from the surrounding area had been to the estate, and this was primarily to use it as a short cut.

In Fitzroy, many said they felt two separate communities were living in close proximity, with the estate a ”no go” zone. But the majority said they were willing for more integration, including removing the perimeter fence and putting paths through the estate, the report found.

They also ran a piece on the effect that public housing estates had on property prices:

Public high-rises keep prices down
October 2, 2012
Simon Johanson

The closer you live to public housing estates such as Richmond’s towering commission flats, the lower property values become. Data supports what is often an unspoken assumption among home buyers – namely, that properties farther from public housing estates generally sell for more than those close to them.

Five years of sales results in Richmond show a median price of $765,500 for homes within 200 metres of the towers. Beyond 200 metres, the median rose to $795,000, analysis by buyer advocate Paul Osborne found. Being near to housing commission flats has a negative effect on value, he said.

So how about Ascot Vale and the public housing estate there? Unfortunately I don’t have access to a real estate sales result database, but I found some other interesting statistics to look at in the 2009-2010 annual report of the Moonee Valley Legal Service.

Looking at the country of origin of residents, the 2006 census gave the population of the suburb of Ascot Vale to be 12,398 people, with 3,382 being born overseas (27%). Meanwhile on the housing commission estate the statistics are flipped on their head – those born overseas dominate, as seen in the table below. When the two statistics are combined to exclude residents of the public housing estate, the number of overseas born residents in Ascot Vale falls from 27.3% to 18.4%.

A similar disconnect between the public housing estate and the rest of the suburb is seen when examining the unemployment rate: the 2006 Census states that of the 6,372 people aged 15 years and over in the Ascot Vale population only 7.0% are unemployed, but among the public housing residents 83.3% are not participating in the workforce.

The reliance on government benefits is reflected in the median individual income statistics: in the three public housing Estates in Moonee Valley around two-thirds of all households live on an income of under $400 per week. For comparison the 2006 census found the average Australian earned $466 per week, with the average Ascot Vale resident earning $520 per week.

As for the rest of Ascot Vale, having a public housing estate down the road doesn’t seem to have killed property prices: according to Australian Property Monitors the median house price for the suburb in 2012 was $683,000 and growing by 6.8% per year.

Further reading

• How rent is calculated for public housing in Victoria
• Statistics for the Ascot Vale estate, from the Moonee Valley Legal Service

Post retrieved by 37.59.21.100 using Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.66 Safari/537.36

The post How does public housing impact a suburb? appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Located on 77 acres of land between Union Road and Ascot Vale Road, the estate is bounded by Dunlop Avenue to the north, Ascot Street to the south, and consists of a mix of multi-storey walkup apartment blocks and semi-detached cottages, all constructed in brick. Originally the site of a racecourse, I detailed the history of the site in a post about Melbourne’s former Ascot Racecourse some time ago.

Racing ended at the course in 1942 when it was taken over to assist in the military effort during World War II, with the fate of the course sealed in August 18, 1945 when State Premier Mr. Dunstan announced that the Government had decided to turn the site over for housing development. A notice of compulsory acquisition was issued in March 1946 under the Slum Reclamation and Housing Act, being finalised in October 15, 1946 when the State Cabinet agreed to acquire the site from owner John Wren for £142,618.

The Housing Commission was the developer of the site, believing the value of the land was reasonable if it was used for flats, but would not be economical if individual houses were built instead. Altogether homes for 2,600 people were built on the 77 acre site, made up of 400 flats, 100 villa pairs and 50 single villas, along with 5 acres of parkland. The first residents moved in to the estate by Christmas 1947, with the below photo from the Moonee Valley Library Service collection showing the estate soon after completion, looking west towards the Melbourne Showgrounds.

The network of streets that divide the estate were named after decorated World War II personnel, which can be seen in the following Google Map:

View Larger Map

For the people behind the street names, these short biographies extracted from Wikipedia give us an idea why they were recognised:

• Wingate Avenue
  Major-General Orde Charles Wingate, DSO and two bars (26 February 1903 – 24 March 1944), was a British Army officer in Palestine in the 1930s and in World War II.
• Dunlop Avenue
  Lieutenant Colonel Sir Ernest Edward “Weary” Dunlop, AC, CMG, OBE (12 July 1907 – 2 July 1993) was an Australian surgeon who was renowned for his leadership while being held prisoner by the Japanese during World War II.
• Vasey Street
  Major General George Alan Vasey CB, CBE, DSO and Bar (29 March 1895 – 5 March 1945) was an Australian soldier. He rose to the rank of Major General during World War II, before being killed in a plane crash near Cairns in 1945.
• Churchill Avenue
  Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, PC, DL, FRS, Hon. RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British politician and statesman known for his leadership of the United Kingdom during the Second World War.
• Morshead Street
  Lieutenant General Sir Leslie James Morshead KCB, KBE, CMG, DSO, ED (18 September 1889 – 26 September 1959) was an Australian soldier with a distinguished military career that spanned both world wars. During World War II he commanded the Australian troops at the Siege of Tobruk and at the Second Battle of El Alamein, achieving decisive victories over the German Afrika Korps, and went on to lead the Australian forces against Japan during the New Guinea and Borneo campaigns.
• Blamey Street
  Field Marshal Sir Thomas Albert Blamey GBE, KCB, CMG, DSO, ED (24 January 1884 – 27 May 1951) was an Australian general during World War I and World War II, and the first, and to date only, Australian to attain the rank of field marshal. During World War II he commanded the Second Australian Imperial Force and the I Corps in the Middle East.
• Savige Street
  Lieutenant General Sir Stanley George Savige, KBE, CB, DSO, MC, ED (26 June 1890 – 15 May 1954), was an Australian Army soldier and officer who served in World War I and World War II, rising to the rank of lieutenant general and commanding a brigade in the North African campaign, the Battle of Greece and Syria-Lebanon campaign.
• Cunningham Court
  Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Browne Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope KT, GCB, OM, DSO and two Bars (7 January 1883 – 12 June 1963), was a British admiral of the Second World War, being Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet.
• Farncomb Street
  Rear Admiral Harold Bruce Farncomb, CB, DSO, MVO (28 February 1899 – 12 February 1971) was a Australian Rear Admiral who served in both World War I and World War II and the first Australian-born RAN officer to reach a flag rank in the RAN.
• Waller Court
  Hector Macdonald Laws Waller, DSO & Bar (4 April 1900 – 1 March 1942) was the captain of the light cruiser HMAS Perth (D29) in World War II. He went down with his ship when it encountered a Japanese invasion fleet consisting of two cruisers and twelve destroyers in the Battle of Sunda Strait at the beginning of March 1942.
• Sturdee Street
  Lieutenant General Sir Vernon Ashton Hobart Sturdee KBE, CB, DSO (16 April 1890 – 25 May 1966) was an Australian Army commander who served two terms as Chief of the General Staff. He proceeded to conduct a doomed defence of the islands to the north of Australia against the advancing Japanese forces.

As expected for a public housing project, the buildings that occupy the estate at Ascot Vale are all of similar design. First off are the apartment blocks: the majority of these are three storeys tall, with dual stairwells providing access to four apartments on each level, giving a total of 12 flats per block.

Some blocks have balconies, as well in the photo below, with this variation in design resulting in only 10 flats per block, due to the rooftop terrace between the two staircases.

The same type of commonality can be seen in the semi-detached cottages at the estate, where three basic types of floorplan used: small cottage with porch, small cottage with an extra room protruding from the front, and double storey cottage. These designs could also be mirrored, allowing them to be mixed and matched in combinations such as those seen below.

As of 2010 a total of 1,500 residents called the public housing estate home, down from the original design capacity of 2,600. One possible cause is smaller family sizes combined with an increase in elderly people living alone, resulting in each residence housing fewer people. Whatever the reason, going into the demographics of who lives in the estate is a story for another day.

Sources

• Ascot Course to be Housing Area. (1946, February 19). Advocate (Burnie, Tas. : 1890 – 1954), p. 3. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article68963377
• Flats may be built on Ascot Racecourse. (1946, February 21). Advocate (Burnie, Tas. : 1890 – 1954), p. 3. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article68963712
• Housing Commission Value For Land Challenged. (1946, September 17). The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 – 1954), p. 4. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2695592
• Rents Higher for New Flats. (1948, March 9). The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 – 1956), p. 5. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article22548833
• Statistics for the Ascot Vale estate, from the Moonee Valley Legal Service

Post retrieved by 37.59.21.100 using Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.66 Safari/537.36

The post History of the Ascot Vale public housing estate appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

However a short distance to the north there was once another racecourse, which has been all but forgotten by Melburnians. Known as “Ascot Racecourse” and located across the road from the Melbourne Showgrounds, photos of the course are hard to come by, but these aerial photographs taken in 1945 for the Victorian Department of Lands and Survey show the two courses clearly: Flemington in Green and Ascot in Red. (the massive full sized image is here)

Named after the famous English racecourse, Melbourne’s namesake was built on a site covering 77 acres between Union Road and Ascot Vale Road, with a track seven furlongs round (1,408 metres) and with separate circuits laid out for flat racing, trotting and steeplechasing. The track was the brainchild of a single person, a Mr. Riley, who had previously operated the Oakleigh Park track on Melbourne’s south eastern outskirts.

The racecourse proposal was not popular with 122 Ascot Vale residents, who presented a petition of signatures to the Essendon Council in September 1893. They argued that because of the large number of existing racecourses in the area (Moonee Valley and Flemington) no more should be allowed to open, and believed that the new racecourse would encourage the attendance of undesirable characters and depreciate the value of property in the immediate vicinity, and the small size of the track would endanger the lives of riders.

Despite the petition the objections of locals appears to have come to nothing, with the first race meeting at Ascot Racecourse being held on Wednesday October 25, 1893 with around 3000 punters in attendance. £300 was distributed in prize money, with £100 and a handsome trophy going to the winner of the principal event: the Ascot Cup. During the early years at Ascot the fortunes for owner Mr. Riley did not turn out well: with Melbourne’s land boom having just turned to bust, the track closed for an unknown period of time, before reopening in September 1899 under new management.

The biggest difference between Ascot and the famous neighbour down the road was the operation of race meetings: instead of being run by a racing club that reinvested their profits in racing and their members facilities, Ascot was a “proprietary racecourse” that was run by the private owner as a profit making business. With race meetings significantly more downmarket than those held by the racing clubs, Melbourne’s collection of proprietary racecourses were popular with the working class in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, until they were closed by the State Government in 1931.

Back at Ascot, another chapter opened in 1906 when notorious entrepreneur John Wren purchased the track. Today known as being the basis of the character “John West” in the 1950 novel Power Without Glory, Wren made his fortune in the late 1890s with his business of totalisator betting system that challenged the traditional ontrack bookmakers, but drew the ire of the state governing body of racing, the Victoria Racing Club, who pressured the State Government into banning the practice in 1906. It was Wren’s purchase of the Ascot Racecourse, along with other proprietary tracks at Richmond and Fitzroy, that enabled him to run his own pony races targeted at working class gamblers, as opposed to the thoroughbreds racing at the elite clubs.

Over the next decade Wren’s enemies continued in their attempts to bring down his racing empire: in July 1915 he offered the his track to the Defence Department to assist the cause of World War I, when a few days later an unnamed deputation called for the Government to cancel the license of the Ascot Racecourse for good. The request was refused by Chief Secretary John Murray, who stated that the abolition of proprietary racecourses was a question to be answered after the war. Seeing the end of his business, Wren sold his Victorian interests in 1920 to the Victorian Racing and Trotting Association, allowing the Ascot Racecourse to remain open when the State Government closed the Sandown Park, Fitzroy, Aspendale and Richmond racecourses in 1931.

It took the intensification of World War II in 1942 to place further restrictions on race meetings throughout Australia. Ascot was not spared, with a short newspaper article in September 1942 advised that the racecourse was “required for other purposes” and not be available for race meetings during the war (code for defence related matters). During this period Flemington, Moonee Valley, and Mentone were the remaining racing venues in the metropolitan area, and by end of the war in 1945 Caulfield Racecourse was allowed to reopen, but for Ascot it was the end of the line as the remaining Victorian racing venues was consolidated.

On August 18, 1945 the State Premier Mr. Dunstan announced that the Government had decided against the resumption of racing at the Ascot Racecourse, with the Victorian Racing and Trotting Association to be relocated to a new venue at Sandown Park, and the land in Ascot Vale turned over for housing development. The Association objected to the move because they held a long term lease from John Wren for the track, and at the same time had to deny accusations of being a proprietary racing club, stating that that their profits went back to racing, along with charity and patriotic groups. The Housing Commission would be the developer, believing the value of the land was reasonable if it was used for flats, but would not be economical if individual houses were built instead.

Due to a breakdown in negotiations with Wren and his partners in regards to the purchase price, the State Government issued a notice of compulsory acquisition in March 1946 under the Slum Reclamation and Housing Act. Wren was unhappy with the Government offer of £117,000 in compensation, valuing the site at £174,000 and so lodging a claim at the County Court on September 17, 1946. The case was settled in October 15 when the State Cabinet agreed to acquire the site for £142,618 – a figure midway between the two competing claims.

Altogether homes for 2,600 people were built on the 77 acre site by the Housing Commission, made up of 400 flats, 100 villa pairs and 50 single villas, along with 5 acres of parkland and a network of streets named after Australian World War II personnel.

View Larger Map

The first residents moved in to the estate by Christmas 1947, but with rents to £2/5/ a week (in 1948) they were paying the most of all Housing Commission tenants in Victoria. Today the flats are managed by the successor of the Housing Commission, the Victorian Office of Housing, and remain as public housing in an increasingly gentrified suburb.

As for the other players at Ascot Racecourse…

• John Wren received an additional windfall in June 1947: the City of Essendon had attempted to charge him £5,591 in rates and interest, accrued during the World War II occupation of the racecourse. He took the fight to the High Court, who found 4 to 1 that municipalities could not legally collect rates for properties taken over by the Commonwealth for defence purposes.
• The Victorian Racing and Trotting Association merged with the Victoria Amateur Turf Club and the Williamstown Racing Club in 1963 to form the Melbourne Racing Club, which still operates today. As for their promised new racecourse at Sandown, it didn’t open until June 19, 1965.

Sources

• The Proposed New Racecourse. (1893, September 8). North Melbourne Advertiser (Vic. : 1873 – 1894), p. 2. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article66165450
• Ascot Races. (1893, October 27). The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 – 1956), p. 3. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8705476
• Protest Against Sainfoin. (1893, November 4). Australian Town and Country Journal (NSW : 1870 – 1907), p. 35. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article71191220
• Notes and Chat. (1899, September 25). The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 – 1956), p. 7. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article9031686
• Ascot Racecourse Unavailable. (1942, September 14). The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 – 1954), p. 6. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article25888303
• Ascot Racecourse Removal Proposed. (1945, August 4). The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1931 – 1954), p. 7. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article43505227
• Ascot Course to be Housing Area. (1946, February 19). Advocate (Burnie, Tas. : 1890 – 1954), p. 3. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article68963377
• Flats may be built on Ascot Racecourse. (1946, February 21). Advocate (Burnie, Tas. : 1890 – 1954), p. 3. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article68963712
• Housing Commission Value For Land Challenged. (1946, September 17). The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 – 1954), p. 4. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2695592
• Melbourne Ascot. (1946, October 16). The West Australian (Perth, WA : 1879 – 1954), p. 10. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article46176932
• Defence Area Rates Claim: Councils’ Cannot Collect. (1947, June 3). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 – 1954), p. 16. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article18028584
• Rents Higher for New Flats. (1948, March 9). The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 – 1956), p. 5. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article22548833

Post retrieved by 37.59.21.100 using Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.66 Safari/537.36

The post Flemington’s forgotten neighbour: Ascot Racecourse appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.