On the downstream side is the original 1936 bridge, with art deco-styled decorative parapets, pillars, and light fittings.

And beside it a far more utilitarian concrete bridge completed in 1992.

In the beginning

Lynch’s Bridge was an early crossing place on the Maribyrnong River for those headed west of Melbourne, with owner of the neighbouring Pioneer Hotel, Michael Lynch, operating a punt on the site from 1849. A competing crossing was operated by Joseph Raleigh at Maribyrnong, which replaced his punt with a bridge in 1858.

SLV photo IAN20/12/66/4

And so in 1863 Michael Lynch petitioned the government for permission to replace his punt with a pontoon bridge, provided he was granted a half acre of land on the eastern bank of the river for the abutments and approaches.

Members of the Essendon and Flemington Council not in favour of private bridges, and the matter was debated, with one local resident questioning the motives of Lynch.

In September 1864 a motion was passed to prohibit Lynch from building a bridge, but it soon rescinded, with the new bridge in use for Melbourne Cup Day 1864.

‘Flemington Racecourse from the Footscray side of Salt Water River, Victoria ‘ by J Ryan

Local residents found the toll gate a nuisance, but Lynch talked up his bridge, telling Western District sheep and cattle owners they only needed to pay a single toll if headed to the sheep and cattle yards on the opposite bank.

As a result in 1866 the Essendon and Flemington Council proposed purchasing Mr Lynch’s bridge, as did the Footscray Council in 1867. However it took until in 1882 for the bridge to be brought under public ownership, the Footscray Council abolished the toll and requesting the Commissioner of Public Works pay the reminder of the loan.

A replacement bridge

However that was not the end of the saga – in October 1901 Lynch’s Bridge was closed by the Public Works Department due to it falling into disrepair, and a Mr J. Byers erected a pontoon bridge beside it to carry traffic to Flemington Racecourse, for a “small toll” of one penny. The debate as to who should fund the cost of a new bridge continued in the months that followed, with a tender finally awarded in December 1902 – eighteen months since the bridge was closed.

MMBW plan 781

The new bridge opened without ceremony in May 1903, after contractors finished their work and left it open for traffic, with members of the Flemington and Kensington Council holding an official opening a few days later, without the involvement of the Footscray Council who also funded it.

SLV photo H2151

The new bridge was built of timber, and had a lifting span in the middle, which sometimes caused delays to river traffic, and had high ongoing running costs.

Haven’t we been here before?

September 1929 was a familiar event – Lynch’s Bridge closed after being declared unsafe for traffic, reopening after temporary repairs were completed over a three week period.

The Footscray Council and the City of Melbourne then considered a number of options for a permanent crossing – a new five span reinforced concrete bridge for £38,750, a new three span steel bridge for £35,900, or extending the life for the existing bridge for five years for £2,250. The Footscray Council objected having to fund half the cost of a new bridge, delaying the start of construction, with an agreement finally reached in January 1936 for the Country Roads Board to pay half the cost of the project.

Opened in 1939, the new Lynch’s Bridge was built on a different angle to the timber bridge it replaced, allowing Ballarat Road to be realigned to meet Smithfield Road, eliminating a dangerous curve on the Footscray side. The Footscray Council suggested naming the new bridge ‘Gent’s Bridge’ after the Town Clerk of Footscray, but it came to nothing.

Traffic troubles

As Melbourne grew, the amount of traffic using Lynch’s Bridge grew – 43,000 vehicles per day using it in 1989, half the volume that used the West Gate Bridge. And the area became known as a blackspot for motor vehicle crashes, with the 1985-88 period seeing 79 separate incidents, including 16 head-on collisions, and nine deaths.

The Age, 23 November 1989

Leading in November 1989 to a coronial inquest being opened into a number of recent fatalities at the site.

Excessive speed was the main cause of car accidents on Lynch’s Bridge in Kensington, an inquest on three deaths on the bridge was told yesterday.

Sergeant Noel Osborne, of the accident Investigation section at Brunswick, said that despite measures to make the four-lane bridge safer, most vehicles approached it too fast. 

The deputy state coroner, Mr Graeme Johnstone, is holding joint inquests on Kevin John Lewis, 35, of Broadmeadows, and Emily Jane Stonehouse, 4, of Werribee, who were killed in an accident on 23 October 1988, and Matthew James Simmons, 25, of Box Hill, who died in an accident on 14 February this year.

Lynch’s Bridge crosses the Maribyrnong River near Flemington Racecourse. The approach from Footscray, on Ballarat Road, has three lanes that narrow to two before a sharp left-hand bend on to the bridge. The Smithfield Road approach, from Flemington, is two lanes.

Sergeant Osborne, asked by Mr Johnstone to suggest safety measures, said that even if the Ballarat Road approach was narrowed to one lane in an effort to slow traffic, he believed many drivers would still try to take the bend too fast. He said the answer was to duplicate the bridge.

“That in my mind is the answer. We certainly would not be having the head-ons as we are now. The number of people killed at this location has caused me great concern. It appears that not a great deal has been done.”

Mr John Connell, of the Roads Corporation, said speed cameras had shown that more than 70 per cent of vehicles approaching the bridge on Ballarat Road travelled faster than the 60 kmh speed limit. The fastest speed had been 139 kmh despite signs recommending 55 kmh.

Peter James McDonald, a truck driver from Maidstone who crosses Lynch’s Bridge regularly, said that at the time of the accident involving Mr Simmons, the camber of the road pulled vehicles to the right as they turned left on to the bridge from Ballarat Road. The inquiry is continuing

The inquest heard that duplication of the bridge had been proposed in 1975, with the cost in 1989 money estimated to be $3 million.

In his findings to the 1989 inquest, Coroner Graeme Johnstone noted that the 1938 bridge was not unsuitable for the volume and speed of traffic passing over it, recommending that the Ballarat Road approach to the bridge be restructured so that the three-to-two lane merge is further from the sharp bend onto the bridge, and that the VicRoads make duplication of the bridge a priority in their road improvement program.

As a result, a duplicate bridge on the upstream side of original bridge was completed in 1992, allowing the 1936 bridge to be dedicated to westbound traffic.

The duplication of Lynch’s Bridge and road approaches at Flemington was opened to traffic in April 1992 and has eliminated one of Melbourne’s worst accident blackspots. In accordance with a Coronial Inquiry recommendation to fast track the works, new technology for bridgeworks and roadworks construction was used. Road approaches over poor ground conditions utilised polystyrene as lightweight fill – a first for VicRoads and Australia. The method reduces road settlements to manageable levels and achieves cost savings over more conventional alternatives. The project was completed in June 1992 at a cost of $5.5million.

And finally – another upgrade

In August 2019 it was announced that Lynch’s Bridge would be upgraded as part of the Western Road Upgrade public–private partnership.

A National Trust-listed bridge which was once the main gateway to Melbourne’s west will be upgraded this week as part of the Victorian Government’s Suburban Roads Upgrade.

Member for Footscray Katie Hall today announced the start of important work to rehabilitate the Ballarat Road Bridge, under the $1.8 billion Western Roads Upgrade.

The crossings over the Maribyrnong River are steeped in history, with the outbound Lynch’s Bridge built in 1936 and heritage listed for its “historical and technical significance” by the National Trust in 2005. Millions of Victorians and visitors would have crossed this bridge in some form.

Lynch’s Bridge also holds technical engineering significance, as one of the first steel and concrete crossings designed so the reinforced concrete deck works together with the steel beams.

The historic five-span bridge sits alongside its more modern counterpart known as the Smithfield Bridge, which was built in 1990.

The 108-metre bridges will undergo work to strengthen them for the future for up to 45,000 vehicles which travel over them every day.

It is anticipated they’ll be used by up to 50,000 cars and trucks daily by 2031.

The art-deco style of Lynch’s Bridge will be preserved as safety barriers are upgraded on both bridges, and footpaths and drainage will also be improved.

There will be some lane closures in place as this work is underway to ensure road crews can work safely and quickly.

Work included.

– removed old barriers and replaced them with new safety barriers
– installed cathodic corrosion protection to protect the metal bridge supports from rust and deterioration
– resurfaced the road on the bridges and on approach to the bridges
– removed features no longer needed such as broken lights.

You had to look close to see the changes.

Major Roads Project Victoria photo

But the big new crash barriers are easy to see when driving past.

But one thing that is obvious is the focus on motor vehicles, not active transport.

The bridge has enough space for a grass median strip!

Yet pedestrians are forced into a narrow footpath.

And cyclists are given a narrow strip of asphalt, centimetres from passing vehicles.

Pretty crap upgrade, isn’t it?

Footnote: water under the bridge

When I visited Lynch’s Bridge in December 2020, I noticed these new looking steel additions to the piers of the 1992 bridge.

My initial thought was strengthening work linked to the Western Road Upgrade project, but turns out I was wrong – it’s actually linked to the West Gate “Tunnel” Project.

West Gate Tunnel Project photo

A post on their Facebook page dated 11 November 2021 mentioning the work.

West Gate Tunnel Project crews have started working on modifications to streamline the piers on the Smithfield Road Bridge.
These works will help during high flows in Maribyrnong River and mitigate flooding once our new Maribyrnong River bridge is built. Gaps between the columns will be filled with concrete to create a wall type pier with rounding at both ends.

The works required to compensate for new piers in the Maribyrnong River at Footscray.

West Gate Tunnel Project photo

Forming part of the elevated roadway between Footscray Road and the actual West Gate “Tunnel”.

West Gate Tunnel Project photo

And the work at Lynch’s Bridge seems to have flown under the radar – the only other mention of it I could find was a single line in the West Gate Tunnel Project “Final Report for Submission to the Minister for Planning” for March 2019 to August 2019.

Flood mitigation works completed at Smithfield Bridge

I wonder what difference these works made to the October 2022 Maribyrnong River flood?

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post A history of Lynch’s Bridge at Footscray appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Photo via Adam Bandt

The flooding

The recent Maribyrnong River flood inundated the inner west.

Coming up beneath the railway line at South Kensington.

Maribyrnong River flooding viewed from the Sunbury line train. Kensington Rd under. Some buildings impacted. pic.twitter.com/MsQtTXLAvD

— Melbourne Way (@MelbourneWay) October 13, 2022

And putting Kensington Road underwater.

Luis Ascui photo via The Age

Which isn’t unexpected, given the entire area is covered by a ‘Land Subject to Inundation Overlay’.

As is the low lying land around Moonee Ponds Creek.

Enter the Metro Tunnel

The western portal to the Metro Tunnel is located beside South Kensington station, right in the middle of the floodplain.

So flooding was a consideration when designing the project, with the “Surface Water Impact Assessment” report dated April 2016 examined the risk of flooding to the tunnel, from four different sources.

• Maribyrnong River, which is approximately 500 m from the western portal
• Moonee Ponds Creek, which is approximately 100 m from Arden station
• Yarra River. This is approximately 120 m from CBD South station and could also potentially impact on the eastern portal at South Yarra
• City of Melbourne drainage systems along Swanston Street, adjacent to CBD South station.

The context of the Maribyrnong River at the tunnel portal.

The area immediately to the west of the western portal precinct is subject to flooding from the Maribyrnong River. The Maribyrnong River is one of metropolitan Melbourne’s most significant waterways. It’s catchment area upstream of the three parallel railway bridges to the west of the western portal is approximately 1,400 km2.

The three existing railway bridges through the rail embankment form a significant constriction to flood flows. The floodplain upstream of the bridges is relatively wide, and includes Flemington Racecourse on the east bank and parkland on the west bank. The floodplain upstream of the railway bridges is of the order of 800 m wide, yet the span of railway bridges is only of the order of 100 m. While there is a large bank of culverts through the embankment that forms the right (west) abutment for two of the bridges (the third – the Regional Rail Link Bridge – is a series of bridge spans), the only opening in the left abutment is along Kensington Road. The rail embankment is relatively high and would only be overtopped by an extreme flood event.

Flood gradients along the Maribyrnong River are relatively flat. Consequently, any flood level increases due to works in the floodplain are likely to propagate upstream for a significant distance.

Residential developments and associated compensatory mitigation works have been undertaken along the floodplain upstream of the rail bridges in recent decades. These include, for example, the Edgewater Development. This development included landfilling to enable residential development and excavation of the floodplain to provide compensatory flood conveyance.

Under existing conditions, a one per cent AEP flood would inundate Childers Street near JJ Holland Park to a depth of around a metre.

Looking into the probability flooding in these waterways would impact the tunnel.

Maribyrnong River:

The area around the existing rail embankment, in which the western portal (tunnel decline structure, and cut-and-cover section of tunnels) would be constructed, forms part of the Maribyrnong River floodplain. Under existing conditions, a one percent Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood would inundate Childers Street near JJ Holland Park to a depth of around a metre. There is potential for Maribyrnong River floodwaters to fill the tunnels within hours during a flood event. Up to a days warning would typically be available in advance of such an event.

Moonee Ponds Creek:

The Arden station construction work site, and permanent entrances to Arden station, are in the Moonee Ponds Creek floodplain. The land around the station box and entrances is subject to flooding in events as frequent as 10 per cent AEP. Flood warning times in Moonee Ponds Creek are typically relatively short at only one to two hours.

Yarra River via City Loop:

The Melbourne Metro tunnels are potentially subject to flooding from the existing City Loop tunnels through the underground interconnection at CBD North station. Of the six City Loop tunnel portals in the area between Flinders Street and Richmond Stations, the portal on the line between Flinders Street and Parliament stations, near Federation Square, is at by far the greatest risk of riverine flooding, and is subject to flooding from the Yarra River in an event more frequent than a Year 2100 (ie including allowance for climate change impacts) one per cent AEP Yarra River flood. Up to three day’s warning would typically be available in advance of such an event. The Melbourne Metro tunnels could fill within hours once inundation thresholds were exceeded.

Yarra River via Eastern Portal:

In the absence of any additional mitigation works, the eastern portal would be subject to flooding from the Yarra River in an estimated Year 2100 0.1 per cent AEP (1,000 year ARI) event. A flood immunity risk assessment is required to determine whether this is acceptable.

Overland flows along Swanston Street:

The permanent entrances to CBD South station are subject to flooding from overland flows along Swanston and Flinders Streets. The Flinders Street Station entrance facing Swanston Street, in particular, is subject to some slight ponding of stormwater flows. Very little warning (tens of minutes) would typically be available in advance
of a major overland flow event at this site.

And detailed mitigations to prevent the Metro Tunnel from turning into a giant water slide for trains.

Maribyrnong River:

In the absence of any additional mitigation works, the permanent portal would be protected against flooding from the Maribyrnong River in an estimated one per cent AEP (100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI)) event, under Year 2100 conditions, with a 600 mm freeboard allowance. This would be provided by a proposed retaining wall on the north side of the rail embankment along Childers Street. It is proposed that automatic flood gates be installed during the project’s operational phase to protect the portal against flooding from more extreme events. These gates would extend to the full height and width of the portal and thus provide protection against even the most extreme flood event.

Moonee Ponds Creek:

The permanent station entrances in the Concept Design would be above 0.1 per cent AEP flood levels, including allowance for climate change impacts. The adequacy of this would need to be determined by flood immunity risk assessment.

Yarra River via City Loop:

Flooding from the existing City Loop tunnels through the underground interconnection at CBD North station could be mitigated by installation of flood gates on the City Loop tunnel portal near Federation Square to provide protection during both the construction and operational phases of the project. The other five portals in this area are all immune from flooding in a Year 2100 0.1 per cent AEP (1,000 year ARI) Yarra River flood event. A flood immunity risk assessment is required to determine whether this is acceptable.

Yarra River via Eastern Portal:

At a very minimum, it is recommended that a flood warning system be implemented, such that rail services could be suspended and the tunnels and stations evacuated in advance of an extreme flood. If the risk is not deemed to be acceptable, additional emergency management measures such as sandbagging or flood gates would need to be put in place to protect the tunnels from flooding in an extreme event during both the construction and operational phases of the project. It is currently proposed that the portal incorporate works to allow flood gates in the form of stop logs to be installed across the portal in advance of an extreme flood event. It is also proposed that stop logs be stored adjacent to the portal.

Overland flows along Swanston Street:

All entrances would need to be elevated slightly to provide an appropriate level of flood protection to be determined by flood immunity risk assessment.

A follow up report in August 2016 titled “Flood Defence Options at Tunnel Portals” looked deeper at the flood defence options, and included some additional options.

Eastern Portal:

The Surface Water Impact Assessment recommends that a flood warning system be implemented at this location. In my opinion it will be necessary, as part of the assessment of potential flood protection measures at this location, to also consider the installation of automatic flood gates as a response to extreme flood events. A flood warning system would continuously monitor precipitation and Yarra River water levels and, once predefined flood levels were reached, the system would issue a series of warnings to the operators (including operational and maintenance staff). Once the critical flood level was reached, the operational system would then close down the rail infrastructure (e.g. de-energise the OCL) and automatically close the flood gates.

Western Portal:

The Surface Water Impact Assessment recommends automatic flood gates be installed. Due to the relatively short advance warning times involved, an automated flood gate defence system that integrates an appropriate flood monitoring, warning and fault reporting system is recommended. Once the critical flood level was reached, the operational system would then close down the rail infrastructure (e.g. de-energise the OCL) and automatically close the flood gates.

Interconnection between the MURL and Metro Tunnel Rail Network:

The proposed interconnection between the MURL (Melbourne Central Station) and Metro Tunnel (CBD North Station) networks would provide pedestrian access between the underground station platforms, thereby providing an ingress for water to the Metro Tunnel. As with the Eastern and Western Portals, it is recommended that automated gates are installed at each MURL tunnel portal vulnerable to flooding during a ‘Probable Maximum Flood’ event. Alternatively, it is possible to install a flood gate in the connecting tunnels which would isolate the Metro Tunnel from any flood water in the MURL tunnels, should the MURL not have flood defences retro-fitted.

A final decision

December 2017 saw the flood mitigation scope set, following the signing of the “Metro Tunnel – Tunnel and Station PPP Project Agreement“.

5.2.7 Drainage and Flood Control

(e) The Tunnels, Stations and Portals must be protected from flooding through the most effective, practicable means. Active flood control may be required to prevent flooding into the Portals and some Stations. Passive means must be used where appropriate.

(f) Protection from surface water flooding must be provided as follows:

i. A freeboard that is 300mm above the 1:200 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) rainfall event level (plus provision for climate change) must be provided at all openings into the Tunnels and Stations to protect against surface water or other non-river flooding event.

ii. At the Portals, transverse drainage must be placed across the entrance to the Tunnels to capture the 1:200 year ARI flood event (plus climate change considerations for rainfall) in the decline structures and discharge the storm water in a controlled fashion to the local drainage system in accordance with the requirements of the statutory authorities.

(h) To protect against a river flooding event, a freeboard that is 600mm above the 1:1000 year ARI flood event level (plus provision for climate change considerations for rainfall and sea level rise) must be provided at all openings into the Tunnels and Station.

(i) Any flood waters from the Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers must be prevented from entering the Portals. The design must:

i. determine appropriate warning systems;
ii. determine likely warning times;
iii. determine active responses which may include a manual or automatic responses; and
iv. consider the ease of tunnel closure in the case of a large flood event.

Works at the portals.

5.4 Portals
5.4.1 Project Co must:

(f) design, supply and install active flood protection (1:1000 year event);

And requirements for specific locations.

5.8.1 Arden

(b) At Arden Station, to provide levels consistent with surrounding properties designed in accordance with the “Melbourne Water Guidelines for Development in Flood Prone Areas”, entrances and all openings must be as a minimum 600mm above the Moonee Ponds Creek 1:100 year ARI river flooding event level (plus provision for climate change).

5.8.2 CBD North

(c) Floodwaters from the Yarra River must be prevented from entering the CBD North Station via the connection to Melbourne Underground Rail Loop (MURL) at platform level.

(this change removed the need for changes to the City Loop to remove the flooding risk via that source)

It also required climate change to be taken into account.

15.4 Climate Resilience

15.4.1 The design must include measures for all high and extreme climate change risks to ensure the infrastructure, Stations and precincts are resilient to the projected impacts of a changing climate over the relevant asset’s Design Life. This should be in accordance with the adopted climate change projections and scenarios within the MMRA Climate Change Risk Assessment and Climate Change Adaptation Plan.

And another problem

The “Western Portal Development Plan” dated 2020 details the solution to another problem – how to prevent the emergency egress structure at South Kensington turning into a giant plughole leading into the tunnel.

The building itself is large.

The functional requirements of the ancillary building, combined with required setbacks from existing infrastructure, largely dictate the form and scale of the building and demand a robust and enduring materiality. The building footprint is approximately 22 metres long, 12.5 metres wide and 9.1 metres high. This consists of two levels above ground facing Childers Street, and a basement below ground reaching the tunnels.

But is still in the middle of the floodplain.

But couldn’t be moved.

The above-ground building serves two core functions for the safe operation of the railway tunnels. Firstly, it contains spaces and equipment associated with safe emergency egress
of passengers from the tunnel, and secondly, having created an opening to below-ground infrastructure, the building is required to provide flood immunity through elevating all shaft and stair
openings above the predicted future flood levels.

As it needed an exit to ground level.

So the solution.

Flood immunity at the Western Portal is achieved by elevating all shaft and stair openings above the predicted future flood levels. The additional 3 metres in height (making up the total approximate 9.1 metre height of the ancillary building), is required to house a lift overrun and mechanical plant for the safe operation of the tunnel and emergency egress.

The ancillary building concrete treatment is reflective of the local context of the Western Portal and is required to provide water resistance. The proposed treatment of the upper section of the ancillary building, which is situated above the 1 in 1,000-year flood level, is perforated powder coated aluminium façade panels for screening the roof mounted plant.

Raising everything above flood level.

And building it

Walking past the Metro Tunnel portal at South Kensington, the tall concrete flood wall has been disguised by artwork.

But is clearly seen from inside the approach ramp.

The flood doors themselves to be installed at a later stage.

The lack of openings in the ventilation and emergency egress structure beside South Kensington station is also visible.

But the raised entrance at the future entrance to Arden station is still hidden behind the construction hoardings.

The flood doors in the link between State Library and Melbourne Central stations is also in the future.

But one completed aspect is the signal equipment room beside the railway at Hobsons Road, South Kensington.

Built atop an elevated steel deck.

Which has already kept it above the most recent floods.

Photo via Adam Bandt

Sources

• Melbourne Metro Rail Project Surface Water Impact Assessment (April 2016)
• Melbourne Metro Rail Project Flood Defence Options at Tunnel Portals (August 2016)
• Metro Tunnel Western Portal Development Plan (October 2020)

February 2023 update

The Age has published a piece Metro Tunnel among projects that may have exacerbated flood.

Footnote: examples elsewhere

In Hong Kong the Mass Transit Railway uses flood gates to protect the system from flooding via a damaged immersed tube tunnels.

Connections between stations and basements of neighbouring buildings are also protected by flood doors.

And station entrances are raised above street level to prevent localised flooding from entering stations.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Protecting the Metro Tunnel from flooding appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Flooding out the sandbelt

In 2016 the level crossings on the Frankston line at North Road, McKinnon Road and Centre Road were removed, with the railway being placed into a trench between each road, with three new stations constructed at Ormond, McKinnon and Bentleigh.

Massive drainage pits were constructed on the uphill side of the rail cutting, to ensure that stormwater would not enter the trench, and stop trains.

But given enough rain a massive concrete lined cutting across a natural watercourse will turn into a dam – as local residents found out in December 2016 – the first big storm after completion of the level crossing removal project.

LXRA investigates flood of allegations from angry homeowners
Sam Bidey
Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
January 17, 2017

An investigation is under way to determine whether a new drainage system installed by the Level Crossing Removal Authority caused the severe flooding of dozens of homes.

Residents along Glen Orme Ave, McKinnon, are still out of their houses as the clean-up continues following the December 29 storm.

Irate homeowner Aislinn Martin believes new drainage running through Glen Orme Ave, which was constructed during works to remove the McKinnon level crossing, caused thousands of litres of water to sweep through her house.

The LXRA installed the drainage to protect the rail trench from flooding, but Ms Martin said that just resulted in her street being walloped with a torrential amount of excess water during the storm.

One neighbour, who did not wish to be named, said the flooding occurred because the water was intended to flow into the Elster Creek drain, but, with that already overflowing, it gushed out of the new overflow grates along Glen Orme Ave.

Following the December 29 storm, the LXRA sent letters to residents to advise that all newly installed drainage would be checked and the authority would notify them on the outcome of the investigation.

“We have worked closely with Melbourne Water and council to protect the rail line and ensure our work does not cause any additional flooding,” LXRA project director Adam Maguire said. “We will continue to help clean up with our road sweepers.”

Local member and Liberal MP Georgie Crozier raised the issue in Parliament on 21 March 2017.

My adjournment matter this evening is for the minister responsible for the removal of level crossings, Minister Allan. I have raised on a number of occasions issues in relation to the level crossing removals at North Road in Ormond and McKinnon Road and Centre Road in Bentleigh. This matter relates to the level crossing removal in Ormond and involves the works undertaken for drainage. We have had another weather event today. I believe there are a number of areas in metropolitan Melbourne that have been flooded, and I do hope that there is no ongoing damage from the rains today.

On 29 December significant flooding occurred in Melbourne and across the state from which there was significant damage in the Ormond area and also in the neighbouring area of McKinnon, where significant amounts of water were coming out of the drains that were put in place to cope with the extensive drainage from those level crossing sites.

Nevertheless, my issue concerns, as I said, the North Road area. Many residents have written to me and expressed their concerns about what has actually happened in terms of the pipes and various construction dealing with these drainage issues, with the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA), Melbourne Water and the local council. All of these residents have been told that significant work was done, that everything was okay and that the LXRA had undertaken some investigation and found that the system was operating as it was designed to. However, there are still some concerns held by various residents who have not had many of their queries answered to their satisfaction.

One of the areas of concern relates to all of the piping and the drainage that was laid during the construction phase and what other areas may be affected by this.

The action I am seeking from the minister is that the investigation and the report by the LXRA on these works be made public so that the affected residents can understand fully what consultation with Melbourne Water and the Glen Eira City Council was undertaken and what works actually took place to cater for future flooding, because we will get future rain events which will be greater than the last one. If the minister could provide that to the public, that would be most helpful.

With the Level Crossing Removal Authority publishing their report into the flooding in September 2017.

Throughout 2017 Melbourne Water and the Level Crossing Removal Authority have undertaken a joint review of flooding that occurred as a result of intense rainfall on 29 December 2016 and how the drainage system installed as part of the North McKinnon Centre Level Crossing Removal Project operated during the storm event.

Which found:

The drainage works needed to enable the level crossing removal at Ormond and McKinnon were very complex to design. The passage of the rail corridor through the floodplain and the established character of the area limited drainage design options.

Significant planning and care was taken to ensure the drainage design for the North McKinnon Centre Level Crossing Removal Project did not make flooding worse.

Our review has highlighted that:

• All affected properties are within the envelope of flooding predicted by our modelling both pre and post construction of the drainage.
• As a result of the construction works, many properties will in fact have experienced lower flood levels through the December event than would have been experienced pre-construction. These properties are primarily upstream of the railway works.
• A small number of properties downstream of the railway line were adversely affected as the storm event occurred during construction prior to the works being completed. These property owners have
been contacted directly and are located in Elm Grove and Glen Orme Avenue.

As part of the Project, significant drainage infrastructure was installed and existing assets altered. The drainage infrastructure and alterations have been designed to replicate the pre-existing (prior to project) flood conditions in the area.

The drainage infrastructure and alterations have been designed to replicate the pre-existing (prior to the project) flood conditions in the area. As part of normal flood mitigation activities, Melbourne Water has initiated a project to evaluate localised mitigation opportunities.

Cold comfort for local residents, but a quick glance at the Glen Eira Planning Scheme shows that the entire area is subject to a Special Building Overlay, so flooding is a fact of life for this area.

And over to Blackburn

Blackburn Road in Blackburn is another rail under road grade separation, with the level crossing removed in 2017.

The pedestrian subway at Blackburn station used to flood as soon as a single drop of rain fell.

So the drainage was upgraded to prevent it, including this massive stormwater detention structure on the south side of Blackburn station.

But it had a flow on effect to residents of South Parade, located south of the station.

Rail drain’s flow-on effect
Blackburn station underpass fixed but houses now flooded
Whitehorse Leader
Paddy Naughtin
December 18, 2017

The State Government’s much vaunted improvements to the notorious Blackburn station underpass failed to handle the latest deluge, leading to flooding of neighbouring properties.

Properties in South Parade flooded on December 7 after the new drainage system at the station reached capacity and overflowed on to the street. The water was too much for the street’s gutters and flowed over into people’s yards.

Susan Rundle said the “horrendous” flooding was the worst she’d seen in a decade. “We measured the water being 70cm deep in our backyard — you can see the line on my husband’s workshop where the water got to,” Ms Rundle said.

“The drainage system was upgraded during the level-crossing removal works to ensure the station underpass didn’t flood, but its seems to have just made things worse for other areas in the neighbourhood.”

State Government spokeswoman Hayley McNaughton said the drainage upgrade had been built to standards.

“As part of works to remove the dangerous and congested level crossing on Blackburn Rd the project also upgraded the drainage to mitigate flooding,” Ms McNaughton said.

Local member and Liberal MP Robert Clark took up the case a few days after the floods.

Residents flooded by bungled rail project
9 December 2017

This was South Parade in Blackburn on Thursday evening, as residents were inundated with overflow from the Blackburn rail project’s new drainage system.

Backyards have been flooded, garages filled with water and driveways washed away, causing thousands of dollars of damage to residents’ homes.

After turning the South Parade shopping strip into a concrete jungle in the name of fixing the drainage, instead the project has turned a quiet residential street into a floodplain.

Raising the issue in Parliament a few days later.

I raise with the Minister for Public Transport the flooding that has occurred in South Parade, Blackburn, as a result of the Blackburn rail project, and I ask the minister to find out exactly what has gone wrong and to have urgent remedial works undertaken so this flooding does not happen again.

Last Thursday evening numerous homes along South Parade were inundated with overflow from the rail project’s new drainage system.

After turning the South Parade shopping strip into a concrete jungle in the name of fixing the drainage, the government’s handling of the rail project has turned a quiet residential street into a flood plain.

Photos taken by residents show water gushing out through the grill around the top of the drainage pit next to the station and strewing gravel and other debris across the road before pouring downhill into residents’ homes.

Last Thursday’s flooding was the third and most damaging of the flood events that have started to occur since the rail project works have been undertaken. Long-term residents say that prior to the rail project works there had been no major flooding in South Parade since a drain was installed in the 1960s.

Then raising it again a year later, following more flash flooding.

South Parade residents flooded again by Labor’s crossing bungle
8 November 2018

This is South Parade, Blackburn, on Tuesday – flooded yet again by water overflowing from the “upgraded” drainage system installed as part of Labor’s bungling of the Blackburn level crossing removal.

The LXRA and the government have known about this problem since similar major flooding almost a year ago, but have done nothing to fix it, leaving residents to suffer every time there’s a heavy downpour.

It’s clear that the flooding is coming straight out of the new drainage system – instead of flooding the station’s pedestrian underpass, as used to happen, it’s now flooding residents’ homes all along South Parade.

This first happened in December last year. I raised it in Parliament, residents raised it with the LXRA, it was front page of the local paper, LXRA and the government promised to look into it and then… nothing. It needs to be fixed.

A check of the SES Flood Guide for Laburnum shows that the entire area was already at risk of flooding, thanks to a creek placed underground when the area was first turned into houses.

But that doesn’t mean much to residents if the flooding is now worse than before the level crossing removal works.

And a Pakenham line footnote

Upgrade works at the Clyde Road level crossing in Berwick also resulted in local businesses being flooded out.

Flooded by the rails
Rowan Forster
Pakenham Gazette
2 November 2018

The Level Crossing Removal Authority has been flooded with complaints from aggrieved business owners in Berwick amid allegations properties are becoming inundated by stormwater due to botched upgrades.

Landlords of Enterprise Avenue have reached boiling point – fearful labourers and construction workers could be rendered jobless if the issue persists.

The Gazette understands the problem arose when the State Government began construction at the Clyde Road crossing more than 12 months ago.

As the railway line has been elevated, water no longer flows into the natural drainage system and instead gushes towards the rear of the Berwick properties.

Despite pressuring bureaucrats for more than a year, Barry Pitcher has not received any answers.

It might sound simple, but keeping things dry isn’t easy!

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post The trains are dry, but the neighbours aren’t appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Prevention is better than pumps

The first step is to prevent water from flowing into the trench.

Taking advantage of existing slopes is the easiest way.

Or regrading the surrounding soil to slope away from the cutting.

Adding small kerbs alongside the top of the cutting wall will redirect water.

As will exploiting the massive concrete walls used to stop idiot motorists from crashing down onto the tracks.

But that might not be enough – sometimes upgrades to the local drainage system are required.

To ensure that stormwater doesn’t overflow the surrounding streets, and breach the trench walls.

This means that the only water to end up in the trench is the rain that falls upon it.

Time for drains

Drains between the tracks collect any rainwater.

It then flows downhill to the lowest part of the trench.

Where a pump then sends it back out again, via a web of pipe work.

Under the pump

So how big do the pumps need to be?

The Furlong Road grade separation on the Sunbury line at Ginifer station is a deep hole – the pump station supplied by Aquatec Enviro‎ has some impressive specifications – 3.2 metre outside diameter, 10.74 metres deep, and capable of pumping out 440 litres/second of water.

Main Road at St Albans has a longer approach cutting, so the pump station needs to remove more water – 3.2 metre outside diameter, 9.74 metres deep, and capable of pumping out 490 litres/second of water.

While the Blackburn Road grade separation on the Belgrave/Lilydale lines has more complicated requirements.

The long trench on the approach to the station has a pump station for drainage – 2.3 metre outside diameter, 5.78 metres deep, and capable of pumping out 480 litres/second of water.

But thanks to the depth of the cutting, groundwater also needs to be removed from the cutting, requiring a second pump station – 1.0 metre outside diameter and 6.0 metres deep, but only needing to remove 2 litres/second of water.

And finally, the infamous ever flooded pedestrian subway – it has a 1.8 metre outside diameter and 3.5 metres deep pump station, capable of removing 50 litres/second of water, hopefully to prevent a repeat of this.

And the cost to run them?

Taking the figures for Furlong Road, a 480 litre/second capacity pump lifting water 10.74 metres, assuming 60% pump efficiency, requires a 85 kilowatt motor to drive it.

In reality you might provide two separate pumps taking half the load, which appears to be what happened at the pump stations Aquatec Enviro supplied to the LXRA.

Photo by Aquatec Enviro

The same logic was applied at Ormond station on the Frankston line – multiple 30 kW pumps were installed, backed by a 220 KVA generator to take over if mains power failed.

According to Sustainability Victoria’s “Energy Efficiency – Pumping Systems” best practice guide, a fully loaded 100 kW electric motor, assuring 90% motor efficiency, costs $16 / hour to run or $373 / day to run, if you’re paying 14 cents a kilowatt hour.

So not expensive to run, but still far more costly than the free drainage provided by gravity.

Drainage standards

Metro Trains Melbourne track drainage standard L1-CHE-STD-030 covers the scope of railway drainage – and what it doesn’t:

2.1 This standard sets out MTM requirements for drainage systems within the rail corridor. It covers the technical requirements for drainage of the track formation, supporting embankments and cuttings.

2.2 This standard does not cover drainage from carparks, buildings, overbridges, footbridges, airspace developments, external developments, access roads, roads outside the rail corridor, council drains or properties adjacent to the rail corridor.

2.3 This standard does not include culvert design or design of other infrastructure used to allow overland flow to cross the rail corridor.

As well as the two types of drainage the railway installs:

Cess drains are surface drains located at the formation level at the side of the tracks. They remove water that has percolated through the ballast and is flowing across the capping layer towards the outside of the formation. Cess drains are primarily intended for protect the formation by keeping it dry.

Catch drains (also known as “top drains”) intercept overland flow or runoff before it reaches the track. Catch drains are generally located on the uphill side of a cutting or catch water flowing down the hill and remove it prior to reaching the cutting.

How much water the drains are expected to handle.

9.2.1 Flood design shall protect all track assets from the 1% AEP flood level (1 in 100 year ARI event) and permit the unrestricted operation of trains by not overtopping the capping layer. The capacity of the drainage system shall take into account the rainfall intensity, the water runoff to be managed and the particulars of the location.

And how big the pump stations need to be.

16.4 The pumped system shall provide storage capacity for a 2 hour, 1% AEP (100 year ARI) event in case of pump system failure. A 2 hour period has been determined as an acceptable response time for maintenance staff to reinstate the operation of the pump system after the high water level warning is triggered by the alarm system.

16.5 The pumped system shall provide sufficient redundancy in the pump and pipe sets that when one unit or inlet/outlet pipe is temporarily offline (e.g. maintenance or fault), all drainage requirements can still be satisfied.

16.6 The pump station shall have a connection for a backup generator and pump in case of power failure. The connection type shall be compatible with equipment used by emergency services and MTM.

While the Level Crossing Removal Authorty’s “Cross Drainage Assessment – Rail Under Road” for the Edithvale Road, Edithvale project details the effect that rail under road grade separations might cause to the surrounding area.

3.2 Design requirements

The following criteria and design objectives have been established as a framework for assessing the level crossing removal. The final design requirements will be further developed a part of the design process.

The works must be designed and constructed:

1. To prevent the underside of the ballast flooding from a 1 in 100-year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) event (without freeboard) estimated in accordance with Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R, 2016).
2. To meet the requirements stated in the Metro Trains Melbourne drainage guidelines (Metro, 2016).
3. To meet the flooding requirements of the relevant drainage authorities (typically Melbourne Water and the City of Kingston).
4. In accordance with the requirements of the relevant road authority and the relevant drainage authorities.
5. Such that the potential for flooding of any other property is not increased by the project (initial focus on the 100-year ARI event and other events may be considered subject to
   further direction).
6. To limit the impact of the project on major drainage and overland water flows to the satisfaction of the relevant drainage authority(s). This will typically require assessment of changes (afflux) in velocity, depth, erosion, duration of inundation.

As well as the elements that make draining a road under rail grade separation hard – or simple.

A preliminary flood and cross drainage assessment has been undertaken for Edithvale Road, Edithvale level crossing removal.

The purpose of the report is to identify matters relating to cross-drainage that may need to be incorporated into the level crossing removal project design.

The proposed works will not occur within a defined land subject to inundation overlay or special building overlay. Furthermore, available topographical data indicates that the proposed works occur along a local ridge where surface flows will generally discharge away from the rail corridor.

Due to the characteristics of the site, in particular the ridge crest location of the existing rail corridor, it is considered that the project will not have a significant effect on cross flows and consequently flood risk within the surrounding area.

Potential increases in rainfall intensities from climate change and the effect that this may have on the standard of flood protection for the railway, road assets and other properties will be considered for cross-drainage design.

Given that the proposed works will not impede or impact overland flow paths or existing flood areas no further mitigation is required as a result of the project.

As the design progresses, management of the local drainage network and catchments should generally be incorporated into the design and further analysis of major overland flow paths should not be required.

And a City Loop footnote

The City Loop tunnels have a similar problem – how do you prevent water from running down the approach ramps and into the tunnels!

Their solution is simple – a concrete lip at the top of each ramp, preventing groundwater from entering.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Sending rail under road, minus the swimming pool appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

This photo is actually from May 2016

The tram tracks at Southbank flooded as they always do – the entire area is virtually at the same level as the Yarra River, so the water has nowhere to go.

Trams on my line had to stop because of the flooding. Don't worry though the government is solving our public transport issues with new maps pic.twitter.com/J7aMbuTiNv

— Steel Sheep (@Travinport) December 29, 2016

Pedestrian subways are another usual flooding suspect in Melbourne – with the underpass at Broadmeadows station being one example.

Meanwhile at Broadmeadows station #melbweather #metro @theheraldsun pic.twitter.com/9HOIhLceVU

— Jamal Ben Haddou (@JamalBenHaddou_) December 29, 2016

The subway at Oakleigh was another.

@JamalBenHaddou_ @theheraldsun Oakleigh pic.twitter.com/SDcQl5DcXF

— Jonathan (Jon) (@BrillOBuffalo) December 29, 2016

But tracks at low lying railway stations also ended up underwater. This was Prahran.

I don't think I'll be getting a train from here today.. #melbourneweather pic.twitter.com/4FrLAtj6aZ

— alexjmackey (@alexjmackey) December 29, 2016

Over at Keon Park station a train stopped just in time to avoid ending up in the drink.

Keon Park station. Storm insanity. pic.twitter.com/BYLRK6rnV3

— Alicia Byrne (@AliciaB22) December 29, 2016

But over at Ivanhoe a train was caught in the middle of it.

Not a boat in the Yarra, but a train stuck in floodwater at Ivanhoe station #melbweather #metro pic.twitter.com/WZVSytXOYq

— Courtney Lai (@DrCourtney329) December 29, 2016

Left unable to move.

So this is Ivanhoe station at the moment in Melbourne. The line is out from Clifton Hill to Macleod. It's 15cm deep #melbweather pic.twitter.com/0jSNThx4c9

— Lachlan Downing (@highbookwyrm) December 29, 2016

At least the brand new train trenches on the Franskton line didn’t flood.

No visible problems in the new Bentleigh trench, though outbound trains altered to use platform 3, possibly due to flooding at Moorabbin. pic.twitter.com/L6ANSuyudO

— Daniel Bowen (@danielbowen) December 29, 2016

Thanks to the massive sump pumps at each station.

Footnote

Did you notice how almost every photo I linked to above are portrait format? Just goes to show how the average person uses their smartphone, and explains the plague of vertical videos on the internet.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Flash flooding and Melbourne’s railways appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Edmund Carew of Windsor had this to say in a recent edition of The Age:

Beyond capacity

Shivering at South Yarra station recently and comparing a new, narrow and almost useless platform shelter to the older full-width ones gave time to consider why the Victorians and Edwardians could build infrastructure properly, unlike in Victoria today. With Public Transport Victoria and Metro unable to build shelters that properly protect rail users from driving rain, Victorians can have little confidence that Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allan will be able to build any new railway lines properly (“Metro to tunnel under Yarra River”, 5/8.)

Already, Ms Allan says there won’t be new platforms at South Yarra despite the huge residential and office growth in the past decade. The mostly unfunded Melbourne Metro is grossly deficient before a tunnel sod has been turned.

A few days later, two more readers chimed in on the topic:

No shelter for travellers

Edmund Carew (Letters, 7/8), I hear you loud and clear. The new West Footscray station is a huge monolith that is so badly designed that even the “covered” walkways and platform don’t provide shelter from the rain. Most people huddle near the myki machines to get respite from the cold, wind and rain. It beggars belief that someone was paid big bucks to design this thing and yet not one single person in the whole process thought about appropriate shelter for commuters. Epic fail.

Mina Hilson, West Footscray

One seat for allcomers

At least you got a platform, Edmund Carew. On the 86 tram route on Smith Street in Collingwood, a single seat has been installed at a stop. In the streets surrounding this lonely perch, 3000 apartments are due for completion in the next year, and who knows how many more after that. Not to mention those already built. The mind boggles.

Benjamin Doherty, West Melbourne

North Melbourne railway station was upgraded in 2009, and is an early example of Melbourne’s trend towards architectural wankery trumping weather protection – the new concourse is high up in the air, with nothing to prevent windblown rain from drenching waiting passengers.

A year later a brand new footbridge at Footscray opened – while it features both a roof and wall, both are studded with holes that let water in every time it rains, earning it the ‘colander bridge‘ nickname among locals.

Thankfully as part of the Regional Rail Link project, Footscray station received a second round of upgrades, including:

sealing the perforated panels on the William Cooper pedestrian bridge to improve weather protection

However the project team didn’t learn much from their work at Footscray – the new overhead concourse at Sunshine station has a roof, but no walls!

Hopefully those building our railway stations charge will work it out with their next upgrade project!

A comparison

Welcome to North Melbourne station – the modern verandas at the city end do nothing to shelter waiting passengers.

But walk 50 metres to the heritage listed end of the platform, and the original verandas keep you bone dry.

It sure takes some skill to take something that works, and build something next door that doesn’t!

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Useless shelters at Melbourne railway stations appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Blackburn is usually the first to go underwater, and on Friday night it didn’t fail to disappoint.

Blackburn: Subway is now flooded. If headed to Blackburn in the citybound direction, get off @ Box Hill for train back to Blackburn.

— Metro Trains (@metrotrains) May 31, 2013

But three more stations were also closed for the same reason.

Essendon: Station subway is now flooded. We’ll be running a bus shuttle from Moonee Ponds to Essendon to connect to Craigieburn services.

— Metro Trains (@metrotrains) May 31, 2013

Glenroy: Station subway has flooded; railway line can be crossed safely @ Glenroy Road level crossing 120m south of the station subway.

— Metro Trains (@metrotrains) May 31, 2013

Cranbourne/Pakenham lines – Sandown Park station subway is currently flooded. Bus shuttle is operating between Springvale and Sandown Park.

— Metro Trains (@metrotrains) May 31, 2013

So why do so many railway station subways in Melbourne end up underwater? The Victorian Rail Industry Operators Group ‘Railway Station Design Standard and Guidelines‘ document has the following to say:

Water migration in Underpasses

The underpass shall be designed such that the ingress of moisture into the subway is kept to an absolute minimum and adequate measures to mitigate the risk of flooding shall be employed. Total area drainage shall be such that the water is removed from the underpass within X time for a 1 in 200 year flood event.

Where a pump or pumps is deemed to be necessary, a staged sump pumping system is to be designed and installed to prevent flooding. The design of the sump pumping system shall consider how maintenance access to the pumping system is to be achieved without disruptions to pedestrian traffic. Where the underpass is the only means of crossing the
track an alarm should be included to indicate flooding and/or operational issues with the sump pumping system.

a) Engineering Requirements:

Where there is a requirement for a pump to be installed to mitigate the risk of
flooding in underpasses the following engineering requirements shall be applied:

• Pumps shall be an automatic duty/standby arrangement Flygt pump and controls or approved equivalent.
• Pumps system health and operation shall be monitored by a telemetry system connected to the station alarm network.

So do any pedestrian subways in Melbourne actually have working pumps in them? From the flooding seen on Friday one would assume the answer is ‘zero’ – but last year I actually saw a maintenance crew removing an old sumo pump, and replacing it with a brand new unit.

So what about the standards for drainage? Unfortunately the VRIOGS document above only gives us ‘X time’ so we can’t tell – but the frequent flooding suggests either the standards allow a few hours for water to drain away, or that nobody at Metro cares about them.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Metro Trains and flooded pedestrian subways appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.