Today we look at the Middleborough Road Project of 2007, which isolated the Lilydale and Belgrave lines for six weeks while a new rail cutting was excavated under Middleborough Road at Box Hill.

Trying to catch a bus at Box Hill

If you’ve ever had the misfortune of trying to catch a bus at Box Hill station, you know how convoluted the route is – first a set of escalators to exit the platform.

Then futz around with the ticket gates.

Dodge clueless shoppers inside Box Hill Central shopping centre.

Then take a vertigo inducing trip up another set of escalators into the middle of the shopping centre atrium.

And you’re finally there.

So what did the Middleborough Road Project do?

Then-rail operator Connex still called in the buses.

Up to 48 buses will run in peak periods between Box Hill and Blackburn.

The trip between Blackburn and Box Hill should take no longer than 17 minutes, including time to board and disembark, and walk between the bus and the train.

During peak periods and throughout the day on weekdays, a continuous shuttle bus service will operate between Box Hill and Blackburn. Buses will depart as soon as they are full and return as soon as the passengers on board have disembarked.

After 9pm on weekdays and on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays, buses will operate to a set timetable. This will correspond to the temporary timetables for train services.

But built two temporary bus interchanges for them to operate from.

Blackburn

Buses will depart a temporary bus interchange just to the north of the station. Up to eight buses can stop in this interchange which will be built over an existing small car park and on the station side of Railway Road.

An extra DDA compliant crossing point is being built to the west of the station to accommodate passenger movement to and from the buses. This walkway will cross from the end of platforms 1 and 2, north to temporary bus interchange. It will not extend southwards to South Parade.

In addition, a number of gateways will be made in the fence separating platform 3 (which is the northern-most platform) and the adjacent temporary bus interchange in the car park.

Box Hill

A temporary bus interchange will be built next to the station, under Box Hill Central. The railway tracks, which are not in use during the shutdown, will be covered and the interchange built over them.

The interchange will have capacity for up to eight buses at a time to load/unload.

A pedestrian bridge, with stairs, will link platforms 2/3, with the bus interchange.

And how it worked

The interchange at Box Hill was the most impressive, with concrete being laid right over the top of the railway tracks, but in a way that trains could still run.

Weston Langford photo

So after the railway was shut down, buses could drive right in along the tracks.

Weston Langford photo

Stopping at a temporary bus interchange built on the tracks beneath the shopping centre.

Chris Gordon photo

Passengers being able to connect to trains on platforms 2 and 3 using a temporary footbridge over the bus roadway.

Chris Gordon photo

Buses then headed for Blackburn along the railway tracks.

Weston Langford photo

Exiting onto Whitehorse Road via a ramp at Linsley Street.

Weston Langford photo

And today?

2023 saw buses replace trains between Camberwell and Box Hill for level crossing removal works at Mont Albert Road, Mont Albert and Union Road, Surrey Hills – so how much effort was put into the replacement buses for that project?

At Camberwell station passengers had a short walk from the platforms to a shelter on Cookson Street to wait for buses.

With traffic controllers guiding buses out onto Burke Road.

But at the Box Hill end passengers got nothing – having to fight their way out of the station and along the Market Street mall to Whitehorse Road, where the buses would stop outside the shops.

In all an incredible contrast to the world of 2007 – we now grade separate dozens of level crossings each year without blinking, but put almost zero effort into making life easy for the passengers having their travel disrupted.

Further reading

• Vicsig page on the Middleborough Road Project
• Connex page on the Middleborough Road Project
• Forgotten lessons from rail replacement buses by me, and
• A look at the longest railway line closures in Melbourne, also by me.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Driving a bus down the railway tracks appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

In the beginning, the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV) was responsible for the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity over the entire state of Victoria.^*

(Well, *almost* all of it.)

SECV annual report 1972

But then in the 1990s Jeff Kennett carved up the SECV into a web of different generation, transmission and distribution business – ready for privatisation.

The responsibility for the distribution of electricity to individual consumers was split into five geographic regions – CitiPower supplying the Melbourne CBD; United Energy and Jemena the middle suburbs; and Powercor and SP AusNet from outer suburbs of Melbourne and into the Victorian countryside.

Essential Services Commission diagram

But how do you draw the line between the different electricity distribution businesses?

Map from www.energy.vic.gov.au

You follow the power lines.

Based on how the SECV originally structured their distribution network.

Essential Energy diagram

Zone substations convert electricity at 66kV down to 22kV, and you can hide one on a suburban street – there would be about a hundred of them scattered around Melbourne alone.

But zone substations need to be supplied with power, which comes from much larger terminal stations. You can see their massive 220 kV transmission lines from a mile away, so there are only a dozen around Melbourne.

Which leads us back to the “this pole belongs to [power company]” signs…

Turns out some zone substations have 66 kV power lines that pass pass through areas that belong to other distribution companies on their way to the nearest terminal station, so the signs are needed so the two companies know who is responsible for maintaining a given pole.

And another mess

In the Victorian electricity industry the 1990s reforms there is a second market subject “competition” – multiple energy retailers all competing to sell you the exact same electrons to you, but at wildly different prices.

All electricity retailers in Victoria are required to give consumers a “Default Offer” – a fixed price set by the government which is considered to be reasonable to both parties.

Unfortunately there is one part you don’t get a choice in – each of the five energy distributors set their own ‘daily supply charge’ which all retailers have to pass on to you.

As of 2023 people living in the United Energy region only pay $1.0753 per day to have an electricity connection, while those in the Powercor area get slugged $1.3102 per day.

You’d hate to be right on the boundary of two distributors, and living on the side that has to pay more!

As for a real solution?

The other solution would be to ditch this whole charade of “competition” and just nationalise this mess of separated distribution and retail electricity utilities.

When I first tweeted this back in mid-2022 I was hoping we’d eventually see a political party with the guts to do that, and a few months later, one came close – promising to deliver “government ownership of energy generation”.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post “This power pole belongs to” appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Some history

The 2.5km long West Gate Bridge consists of two concrete box girder approach viaducts, 871m and 670m long, and an central 848m cable stayed steel box girder span over the Yarra River. The pier height varies, with a maximum height is 48m.

Except for the portion over the river, practically the full length of the bridge is above vacant land and can be accessed from below by means of elevated work platforms.

Ace Tower Hire photo

But for the portion of the bridge over the river, four permanent maintenance platforms were provided beneath the steel spans.

Operated from two runway beams, three of the platforms dated back to the construction of the bridge in the 1970s, with a fourth installed in 1995, these gave access for routine inspections, as well as minor works such as washing and patch painting.

Upgrade time

In 2006 the State Government announced that they would upgrade the West Gate Bridge to carry an additional lane of traffic, taking it to five in each direction.

Scaffolding was setup underneath the bridge to allow the necessary strengthening works to take place.

Including suspended platforms.

And an elevated lunch room!

The most noticeable change being the outriggers added to the steel span to support the load from the additional traffic lane.

But this presented a problem – it would block the passage of the existing maintenance platforms.

Two options were considered – a replacement system of maintenance platforms, or the acquisition of a mobile bridge inspection platform that would be deployed as needed.

The solution – an upside down crane

This weird looking thing is a MBI 200 under-bridge access unit, custom designed by Moog GmbH in Germany specifically for the Westgate Bridge.

Victorian Government photo

The State Government boasting in a September 2012 media release.

Australia’s largest Mobile Bridge Inspection Platform will improve access for maintenance inspections on Victoria’s most iconic bridge, Minister for Roads Terry Mulder said today.

Roads Minister Terry Mulder announces a mobile bridge inspection platform will replace permanent hanging inspection platforms for the West Gate Bridge, providing more efficient and cost effective maintenance.

Mr Mulder said the mobile bridge inspection platform would replace permanent ‘hanging’ inspection platforms for the West Gate Bridge, providing more efficient and cost effective maintenance.

“Mobile bridge inspection platforms are becoming more and more common on large bridges around the world as sustainable and cost effective maintenance tools,” Mr Mulder said.

“I’m very pleased to launch this innovation in Victoria, which will provide a great cost saving, as we do away with expensive and heavy permanent inspection platforms that span nearly one kilometre.

“It also improves access to all areas under the West Gate Bridge with an expanding platform that can extend for 20 metres under the bridge deck.

‘This will make it is easier for maintenance inspectors to see more of the underside of the bridge and because it is mobile, they can manoeuvre it to exactly where they want to be,” Mr Mulder said.

In what can only be described as an ‘upside down crane’, the unit includes a 17 metre boom arm that extends over the bridge barriers and lowers the inspection platform in place.

In order to stabilise such a large operation, the base truck, at 12 metre in length, has six axles when in operation and weighs 37 tonnes.

“The Mobile Bridge Inspection Platform has come to Australia all the way from Germany and is a great example of Victoria delivering innovative solutions to manage key infrastructure well into the future.”

When in operation, the unit will require two lanes to be closed on the West Gate Bridge to complete an inspection. These will be conducted during off peak periods and at night to reduce delays to traffic.

The bridge inspection unit completed initial testing on the yet to open Nagambie Bypass.

Moog GmbH photo

Showing off the capability of the machine.

Moog GmbH photo

And looking like a transformer in the process.

The inaugural use on the West Gate Bridge was scheduled for Saturday 22 September between 6:00am and midday.

Moog GmbH photo

Two lanes of traffic being closed, while the machine was in use.

Moog GmbH photo

But following the successful commissioning of the unit, it is usually deployed in the dark of night, to minimise the amount of disruption to traffic.

Footnote: more details

Some facts and figures

– 12 metres long
– 2.5 metres wide
– 4.4 metres tall
– 37 tonne mass
– 800 kilogram maximum payload
– 20 metre long access platform
– 17 metre long boom arm
– 6 effective axles when in operation

The under-bridge access unit is mounted atop a Scania 8×4 chassis, with two auxiliary axles able to be lowered to provide additional stability to the vehicle while in use, removing the need for outriggers. Movement of the vehicle while deployed is via 200mm diameter hydraulic driven rollers bearing on the top of the one set of tyres, providing accurate creep control.

VicRoads diagram

Along the boom modular aluminium access scaffold are provided to give access to the underside of the bridge. Additional equipment includes a 12Kva generator providing 415 and 240 volts to power tools, LED lighting, air compressor, water tank and pump, and a hydraulically operated telescopic lift.

VicRoads diagram

Footnote: and other bridges

The West Gate Tunnel project recently used an under-bridge access unit to inspect Shepherd Bridge in Footscray.

West Gate Tunnel Project photo

But they used a ABC 150/LST unit built by Barin Italy, supplied by Ace Tower Group.

Further reading

• West Gate Bridge: mobile bridge inspection platform: Polymenakos, D; Silla Sanchez, J; Noonan, J; Austroads Bridge Conference; 2014
• Australia’s largest ‘upside down crane’ to improve maintenance inspections on West Gate Bridge: Victorian Government media release; 2012
• West Gate Bridge Strengthening Project: Australian Construction Achievement Award paper
• Delivery of MBI 200 to Melbourne: Moog GmbH
• West Gate Bridge: Ace Tower Hire

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Inspecting the West Gate Bridge appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Going for a ride

We start on the Melbourne side of Bacchus Marsh, looking down into the valley below.

Pass over Parwan Creek on a curved embankment.

Then into another cutting.

To finally arrive into Bacchus Marsh station.

But that was only a taste of the journey ahead – we’ve got an even bigger hill to climb.

Trains get a short respite from the climb at Maddingley, where V/Line have a stabling yard and crossing loop.

But five minutes later, you’ll see the same train again, but far above your head, and running in the other direction.

Having rounded the horseshoe curve.

Then hugging the hillside.

Don’t look down – the V/Line stabling yard is back at the bottom of the hill.

But trains still have further to climb.

Now running in a cutting hewn out of the rock.

The grades ease off again at ‘Bank Box’, where a crossing loop allows opposing trains to pass.

Then it’s off into the rugged bushland of Werribee Gorge.

A tall bridge crossing between the ridges.

Until the railway line finally rejoins level ground, and can leaves the curves behind.

So why does it curve around so much?

I’ve written about the history of the Melbourne-Ballarat railway before – born as a line headed east from Ballarat towards Ballan in 1886, and a second branch west from Sunshine towards Bacchus Marsh in 1887 – the hills outside Bacchus Marsh presented a formidable barrier.

Topographic maps showing the steep country around the Werribee Gorge.

Bacchus Marsh 1:50 000 topographic map, Geoscience Australia

A newspaper report from the period describing it as.

There still remains to be constructed that portion of the line extending from Bacchus Marsh station to Ballan, a distance of 17 miles.

The route of this section passes through most difficult country, there being a rise of over 1800ft in that distance The earthworks on this section alone will necessitate the removal of no less than 1¼ millions of cubic yards, cuttings for long distances being upwards of 40ft in depth while the embankment will be correspondingly high, in one instance more than 100ft.

These heavy earthworks result from the fact that the line has to be carried along the northern spurs of the great plain which extends from between the Werribee River and Little River to Port Phillip. The steepest gradient upon the line will be 1 in 48.

It will be seen from the figures given that the through railway is far from being an easy line to construct. The country through which it passes is so broken and difficult as to compel the provision of very large works, while the earthworks are upwards of 50 per cent greater than upon the line by way of Geelong.

And the benefit of the new line.

The present distance to be travelled by rail between Melbourne and Ballarat, by way of Geelong, is 100 miles, but when the direct line is completed that distance will be reduced to 74 miles, a saving of 26 miles been thus effected in the journey to Ballarat.

But despite all the massive earthworks, the railway still required a large horseshoe curve outside Bacchus Marsh to attack the hill.

Bacchus Marsh 1:50 000 topographic map, Geoscience Australia

But still the railway had one of the steepest grades on the Victorian rail network – a 1 in 48 climb all the way from Bacchus Marsh to just outside Ballan.

Victorian Railways grades and curves diagram

What about an alternate route?

I’ve seen it on Twitter, I’ve seen it on Reddit – but even when the railway was brand new, people asked why the railway descended into Bacchus Marsh, only to climb back out again.

There has been a question as to the wisdom of taking a fast passenger line down and up the long gradients of Bacchus Marsh to reach the township. It is alleged that the extra haulage required will be fatal to economy and fast service, and that the Ballarat and intercolonial passengers will gain only a few minutes in time, with an added risk of accident. It is contended that a route on a level could have been found encircling the Marsh, which would have secured every advantage.

It was asked again by the late W. Williams in his book “A History of Bacchus Marsh and its Pioneers“, and serialised in the Bacchus Marsh Express.

The horseshoe bend of the railway near the town is a puzzle to many. The question is asked : Why did the line undertake this acrobatic performance? Why did it not pursue its even course on the plateau?

Then follows an ominous shake of the head — “I suppose some job again,” and immaculate departmental purity suffers defilement at the hands of an undiscerning public. For a passing moment the pictorial style of diction is indulged in. I see the train like an elongated caterpillar crawling up yonder summit, with two engines before, and one behind to give a friendly help in time of need.

Straight across to the plateau is only two or three miles, and yet to reach that identical spot the concentrated procession of engines and cars has travelled a circuitous course of eight miles.
On the face of it some mistake appears to have been made, especially when it is remembered that the section is part of an interstate line, in connection with which time is the essence.
of the contract.

But taking a shorter route would have only given minor time savings.

The answer is that the exclusion of Bacchus Marsh by taking the outer route would not be compensated for by any practical gain; that the saving in distance would be only 29 chains, and that the gradients are not such as will seriously prejudice the traffic, and that of all the 17 surveys that have been made none have shown a route that did not join the selected route at the point where the question of gradient has any force.

Alternative routes having been surveyed.

The line as constructed between Parwan station and the Dog Trap reservoir is about 24 chains longer than the route surveyed via Ryan’s corner (near Parwan station) and Collie’s bridge (close to the Dog Trap reservoir), between the same points. The two lines rejoin at the road about midway between the crossing of the Parwan Creek and the Dog Trap Gully on the Ryan’s corner route; and therefore the long gradient of 1 in 48 from the Parwan Creek on towards Gordon must have been the same upon either line.

On the Ryan’s corner route the gradients would have been comparatively easy between Parwan station and the crossing of the Parwan Creek, where the steep ascending gradient of 1 in 48 commences, which is common to both routes. The length of ascending gradient of 1 in 48 upon that portion of the Ryan’s corner route between Parwan station and the Dog Trap reservoir would have been about 110 chains in length, against 240 chains of 1 in 48, and 27 chains of 1 in 50 ascending, and 90 chains of 1 in 49 and 45 chains of 1 in 50 descending gradient upon the line as constructed between the same points.

If the line had been constructed via Ryan’s corner it would have been necessary in order to accommodate Bacchus Marsh, to construct in addition a branch line to that place. And a viaduct would have been required over the Parwan Creek of similar construction to that over the Werribee River. The length of this would have, been about 300 feet, and the height about 120 feet.

A similar bend of about six miles occurs between Mitcham and Belair on the Adelaide end of the overland route. Those places are about two miles distant from each other the crow flies, but are eight
miles apart by railway line, the cause being that Mitcham is 241 feet above sea level and Belair, 1008 feet above the sea.

Now let the doubter for ever hold his peace. Abundant evidence is supplied that from an engineering point of view “the horseshoe” is valid performance, without the faintest approach to any “fishy” aroma.

The horseshoe even seen as an engineering wonder.

It was a great engineering feat to make that railway call at Bacchus Marsh, and then to scale the plateau and the glory involved in same is to be shared by three engineers, Mr Leo. Cussen, Mr. G. C. Darbyshire and Mr. W. C. Billings.

Versatile indeed was the genius of Mr. Leo Cussen, for how seldom in the one mind is there the conjunction of the literary and the mathematical faculty; but law now claims the erstwhile Engineer as one of its brightest ornaments, for in Judge Cussen we have one whose judgments are almost invariably beyond successful appeal.

But the operational cost of the line was high.

It is well known amongst railway employees that the engine drivers and guards who travel over the line dread the journey from Gordons to Bacchus Marsh, for although the distance between those stations is only 25 miles, yet there is a drop in that distance of 1536 feet, in negotiating which the brakes have to be used continuously whilst running down steep embankments and ugly looking curves.

Owing to the heavy pulls between Bacchus Marsh and Ingliston, where the line rises 1170 feet in 13 miles, it requires two engines to take the Adelaide express when heavily laden to Ballarat, and
when only only engine is used on a light train it is assisted as far as Ingliston by a “bull-dog” engine that is always stationed at Bacchus Marsh for that purpose.

Naturally the cost of haulage is unusually heavy, and will in a large measure explain the fact that last year the loss incurred in working the line was £1857.

And as trains grew bigger and heavier, the sharp curves and steep grades grew ever more limiting.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 2545

So the idea of shortening the route was brought up from time to time, such as this 1976 report on upgrading the Melbourne to Serviceton railway.

Parwan to Horseshoe Creek Deviation

This scheme, costing $1.8 million, includes construction of an 8 km long deviation between Parwan and Horseshoe Creek, bypassing Bacchus Marsh to avoid the descent to Bacchus Marsh followed by a steep climb. It also includes keeping the existing track for use by commuter trains originating from or terminating at Bacchus Marsh. A 6 minute reduction in transit time is expected for both directions of travel if the deviation is introduced. Furthermore, the reduction in transit time would render one crossing loop unnecessary.

But it took the Regional Fast Rail project to finally do something about it.

Straightening the curves over Parwan Creek in the descent into Bacchus Marsh.

With the construction of new cuttings and embankments.

VicPlan map

And a 8.2 kilometre long deviation between Millsbrook and Dunnstown.

But with the measure of success for the project being the 60 minutes “Country Express Run Time” between Melbourne and Ballarat, the tracks through the horseshoe curve and up to Bank Box were left with timber sleepers – saving the Victorian Government $404,110.

Only to end up being replaced with concrete sleepers a few years later anyway.

But since then focus has rightly moved from raw speed, to frequent and reliable trains – leading to the recently completed Ballarat Line Upgrade project, which delivered double track to Melton, and a second track and platform at Bacchus Marsh and Ballan stations.

That’s a change in focus that I can get behind.

Footnote

Here is the driver’s view of the slow climb up from Bacchus Marsh to Ballan.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Ballarat trains looping through Bacchus Marsh 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 35.215.163.46 using

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

Taking a quick tour

Mount Mistake is a tangle of concrete bridges and slip lanes.

Google Earth 2020

Carrying six lanes of Geelong Road over the top of the railway.

Google Street View 2014

With a crazy 270 degree loop for westbound traffic from Gordon Street.

Google Street View 2019

Merging into 80 km/h traffic on the top of the bridge.

Google Street View 2019

A fork in the middle of the bridge for eastbound traffic to access Gordon Street.

Google Street View 2019

Leaving a tangle of ramps below.

Google Street View 2019

And a seedy under croft.

Google Street View 2018

So how did it come to be?

The early years

Like most of the western suburbs, ‘Mount Mistake’ was once open plains.

SLV BIB ID 685472

The first road towards Geelong started at Footscray, following today’s Buckley Street to the present line of Geelong Road. It was joined in 1859 by the initial section of the Melbourne-Bendigo railway, the two meeting at a set of level crossing gates.

PROV image VPRS 12800 P7 C/0297

The neighbouring railway station opened in 1888 as Footscray West, before being renamed West Footscray in 1912.

Victorian Railways diagram, West Footscray 1922

And the growth in suburban traffic saw the railway electrified as far as St Albans in 1921.

SLV photo H28682/25

But a bigger change was to come, with the construction of the South Kensington to West Footscray freight line. Two new tracks were built beneath Footscray, allowing goods trains to bypass busy passenger traffic on their way to the new railway yard at Tottenham.

But with four tracks running through a level crossing the gates would spend more time closed than open, so the decision was made to grade separate the corridor.

Enter ‘Mount Mistake’

Grade separating the Geelong Road level crossing was a classic “skyrail vs trench” debate.

GEELONG ROAD CROSSING
Subway Preferred to Bridge

Footscray City Council has decided to again wait on the Minister for Railways and urge the construction of a subway at tho Geelong Road crossing, instead of the proposed overhead bridge at an estimated cost of £27,000.

Estimating the cost of constructing a subway at £50,000, the Railways Department informed the council that this cost would be too great. In addition, stone would be encountered in the excavation work necessary for constructing a subway.

Melbourne’s western suburbs getting the same treatment they do today.

BRIDGE OR SUBWAY?
GEELONG ROAD PROBLEM.

Considerable diplomacy was displayed by the Assistant Minister’ of Railways (Mr. Mackrell) yesterday in dealing with a deputation from the Footscray council, which requested that a subway should be substituted for the proposed overhead bridge on the Geelong Road over the new goods railway line. Mr. Mackrell intimated plainly that he had no hope of the request being granted, but stated that he would inspect the area before reaching a decision.

Cr. A. Hansen said a subway was being built at Essendon, where there was not one-tenth of the traffic as at Footscray.

Cr. O’Toole: Why has Essendon got a subway?

Cr. Hansen: It is not the Cinderella of the districts.

In conclusion, the Minister promised to visit Essendon and Footscray and inspect the areas, and also consider the substitution of a brick wall for an embankment if the bridge were constructed.

But it came to naught.

FOOTSCRAY BRIDGE
Minister’s Decision — No Subway

Protests against the construction of an overhead road bridge at the crossing of the West Footscray railway and Geelong Road are still being made by residents of Footscray, but it is considered unlikely that any alteration will be made in in the plans now being carried out.

The Minister of Railways said yesterday that he was not inclined to agree to the request for an examination by independent engineers. The subway proposal south by Footscray council had been rejected by the Railways Standing Committee, Parliament, and two former Ministers of Railways before the present Government had assumed office.

Railway engineers were against the subway, and after a personal inspection he had also approved of the overhead bridge. On further representations being made he had appointed a committee of two engineers, who, although Government employees, had every freedom to report as they wished, and the committee had endorsed all the previous opinions. He considered in the ‘circumstances that the combined opinion of all the experts should be final.

So the original plans stood – the railway was sunk into a cutting beneath Nicholson Street and Albert Street, and Geelong Road was raised onto an embankment to cross the tracks.

Work started on the Geelong Road bridge in 1927.

SLV photo H2001.308/2924

Tall brick retaining walls taking shape on the approaches.

VPRS 12800/ P7 unit 23, item C 0436

Forming a massive mountain of dirt.

SLV photo H2001.308/2928

The residents of Footscray dubbing it ‘Mount Mistake’.

“MOUNT MISTAKE”
Three Ministers Join in Protest
COLLEAGUE TO INQUIRE

Fifty citizens, representative of the municipal councils of Footscray, Williamstown, and adjoining districts, and of several associations, district and national, this morning urged the Minister for Railways (Mr Tunnelcliffe) to remove the preparations for the overhead crossing at Geelong Road, West Footscray, and to substitute a subway.

Three members of the Cabinet – Messrs Prendergast, Williams and Disney – joined the protest to the Minister.

The embankment was referred to by the various speakers as “Mount Mistake”, “an awful eyesore”, “a rabbit warren”, “a quagmire” and a “monument to the incapacity of the departmental engineers.”

Tho Minister, while defending the engineers, promised to go thoroughly into the question of alteration, and to place the matter shortly before Cabinet. He said that the question of additional cost should not be paramount.

“INJUSTICE TO DISTRICT”

Mr Prendergast, M.L.A., who introduced the deputation, said that the embankment was the most extraordinary thing he had ever seen. It amounted to an injustice to the district, and would, if persisted in, inevitably have to be removed in the near future. The overhead bridge would be dangerous to traffic and unsightly, and the embankment would depreciate the value of real property. The revenue of the football club would be affected by the embankment providing a free stand. He could not understand that a Government department would cause such a disfigurement to a thickly populated district.

Cr. O’Toole (Mayor of Footscray) handed in a petition signed by 4744 residents, in six days. The embankment was known in Footscray as “Mount Mistake.” (Laughter.) It was one of the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated. Not only was the embankment a tragedy from the aesthetic point of view, but it was also dangerous to traffic. A subway would be welcomed by Footscray council, which was prepared to pay the cost of removing the material. Footscray council was spending money in the beautification of the Geelong Road, one of the great arteries.

“A MATTER OF AESTHETICS”

The Minister said he believed that the engineers of the department had honestly tried to overcome a difficulty in the most economic manner. The grade of the proposed subway (1 in 20) would he equal to the grade of tho overhead bridge. The department had eliminated four level crossings in the Footscray district, and had saved the municipality about £50,000.

He agreed that the work on the Geelong road was of outstanding importance. The question at issue seemed to be one of spending £26,000 to provide a more aesthetic structure. He was not sure that a subway would be the more aesthetic. The whole matter would be reviewed by him at an early date.

But it was completed as intended by 1928.

VPRS 12800/ P3 unit 13, item ADV 0138

The approaches were landscaped.

Herald Sun photo

And there the bridge remained for the next few decades.

1945 Department of Lands and Survey photo map

The main beneficiaries – footy fans who could stand on the footpath and watch Doggies games for free.

Photo by Urgeback at English Wikipedia, via Wikimedia Commons

The rise of the car

Trees once lined Geelong Road, forming Footscray’s Avenue of Honour. But in the 1960s they were chopped down to make way for a dual carriageway.

The dual carriageways were extended west throughout the 1960s from Ballarat Road towards Brooklyn, except for one gap – ‘Mount Mistake’. Enter the Country Road Board.

Country Roads Board annual report 1971

Who reported in their 1971 annual report.

The replacement of the old four-lane road over rail bridge at West Footscray commenced in June 1970. A new six-lane bridge and major improvements to several highway intersections either side of the railway line will improve the flow of through traffic and assist cross movements by local traffic when completed in 1973.

The $2,000,000 project includes a new bridge 90 metres (305 feet) long by 23 metres (77 feet) wide, providing six lanes for traffic. A pedestrian overpass and several other structures on the approaches to the rail overpass will cater for cross traffic.

By 1972 costs had blown out – possibly due to the extra underpass taking Cross Street under Geelong Road?

The construction of a new six-lane bridge to replace the old four-lane road over rail bridge at West Footscray continued during the year.

The whole project will cost approximately $3,400,000. Half the new width was completed and opened to traffic, providing four lanes for highway traffic.

When Weston Langford visited in February 1973, the old bridge was gone, ready for the second half of the new bridge to be built.

Weston Langford photo

But the cost of the project had increased yet again – up to $3,800,000.

So the Country Roads Board must have been happy to report the completion of the bridge in 1974.

Country Roads Board annual report 1974

But the bridge did stand the test of time – thirty years later it was just as ugly as it was when built.

Google Earth 2005

Enter Regional Rail Link

In 2008 the Regional Rail Link project was unveiled, to build a pair of new tracks from Southern Cross to Sunshine, taking the total number of tracks through West Footscray to six.

But Footscray was a pinch point, with two more tracks needed to be squeezed beneath the Geelong Road bridge.

To make space, the ‘Rising Sun’ footbridge was demolished.

It once connected Buckley Street to the middle of ‘Mount Mistake’.

Google Street View 2009

But the closure sent pedestrians on a long detour.

Buckley Street was moved behind a concrete crash barrier.

And West Footscray station was moved to a new site to the west.

The old station being demolished.

To make extra space beneath Geelong Road.

With the new tracks opened in 2014.

But despite all the changes, one part of ‘Mount Mistake’ still exists – the brick wall that formed the north abutment.

Footnote: concrete traffic barriers

In the 1970s increasing vehicle speeds saw the need for stronger barriers on road bridges, and the new Geelong Road bridge at West Footscray was one of three sites they were trialled by the Country Roads Board.

Country Roads Board annual report 1972

The barriers were of the California Division of Highways ‘Type 20’ design:

Approximately 1500 metres (5,000 lin. ft.) of barrier is to be constructed on the West Footscray project. The barrier is to be continuous over approach embankments and structures. A steel-pipe railing supported by cast-steel posts is to be mounted on top of the concrete barrier

The standard precast unit is 1.5 metres (5 ft.) long and weighs 500 kg (1,100 lb.) allowing easy handling and installation on curved alignments (at West Footscray, units are used around a 27 metre (90 ft.) radius curve).

By June 15th 1972, all of the 263 units required for the first stage of the West Footscray bridge had been delivered to the site, and 750 units for later stages remained to be manufactured.

Footnote: signal boxes

The first signal frame at West Footscray was commissioned in 1886 to control access to the sidings, with a full signal box opening at Geelong Road in 1889. This was followed in 1992 by a new signal box at the Melbourne end of the down platform, featuring a 41 lever VR ‘A’ Pattern Cam and Tappet frame.

PROV image VPRS 12800 P7 C/0297

As part of the construction of the road overpass, in 1927 a temporary level crossing was provided at Geelong Road, controlled by a 23 lever signal box.

This timber signal box had been relocated from Footscray ‘C’ at Albert Street, following the removal of that level crossing in 1926.

SLV photo H2001.308/2928

In 1928 the overpass was in use and the temporary level crossing and signal box removed.

The 1922 West Footscray signal box controlling trains on both the passenger and goods lines.

VPRS 12903/P1, item Box 670/18

Following the construction of the wider Geelong Road bridge in the 1970s, the hipped roof of the signal box was removed, replaced by shallow pitched flat roof.

But by the 1990s the role of the signal box went into decline. The first change was the removal of the West Footscray goods yard by 1991, followed in 1996 by the removal of the connection between Tottenham Yard and the suburban tracks.

In 2000 the signal box was permanently ‘switched out’ after control of Tottenham Yard was transferred to West Tower, until finally decommissioned on 3 October 2013, after which it was immediately demolished to make way for Regional Rail Link.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post A history of ‘Mount Mistake’ in Footscray appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Some background

For almost 15 years the creation of new level crossings in Victoria has been blocked by government, thanks to the passing of amendment VC016 to the Victoria planning scheme in September 2002:

Amend the clause 18.01-2 of SPPF to require transport routes to be designated to provide for grade separation at railways.

Public Transport Safety Victoria expand further in their Road/Rail Safety Interface Agreements guidelines:

Planning scheme amendment 18.01-2 of the State Planning Framework states that “design of transport routes must provide for grade separation at railway crossings except with the approval of the Minister for Transport”. This policy is primarily intended to prevent the construction of new roadway level crossings.

A notable level crossing rejected by this policy change is Aylmer Road on the Cranbourne line.

City of Casey councillor Damien Rosario explains further:

In the early 1990s the State Government approved development plans for the Lynbrook/Lyndhurst area with a level crossing at Aylmer Road, with developers required to make contributions for the level crossing.

However a few years ago, when Council was planning to construct the level crossing, the State Government changed the rules to prevent any further level crossings throughout Victoria. This meant that connectivity between Lynbrook and Lyndhurst could only be achieved via an overpass or an underpass.

The current version of the Lynbrook and Lyndhurst Development Plan still makes reference to an “at-grade” crossing at Aylmer Road reflecting the original planning for the area. Council will be updating this document to recognise the change in circumstance brought about by the State Government’s changes to railway crossing planning.

So when did the last new level crossing get built?

Finding the candidates

Melbourne was a early builder of railways, with the majority of today’s network in place by 1890 – a time long before mixing road and rail traffic was a concern!

VPRS 12800/P1, item H 4165

In the decades that followed a few short rail extensions were opened in suburban Melbourne – the Princess Bridge-Victoria Park direct route in 1901, the Albion-Jacana freight line in 1929, and the the eastward extension of the Glen Waverley line in 1930.

VPRS 12800/P4, item RS 0391

With motor cars beginning to fill the roads, the railways mentioned above were all grade separated from the start – no level crossings at all!

You might think that would throw a spanner in my search, but if we move forward to the 1980s we find the trail again – on the Altona line.

Originally opened as a short single track branch line to Williamstown Racecourse in 1885, the line was extended to the beachside town of Altona in 1888. There it remained until 1985 when the line was extended west to Laverton, via the new station of Westona, to form a through route to Werribee.

Thanks to the narrow rail corridor, the cheapest way to extend the line was a single track at ground level, resulting in two new road/rail level crossings: Grieve Parade, and Maidstone Street.

We then have an explosion of new level crossings created in 1986, with the opening of the Webb Dock railway line.

Built to link to Port of Melbourne with the wider rail network, the line ran at grade from the rail yards next to Southern Cross Station, crossing the Yarra River, and then running parallel to Lorimer Street, Todd Road and Wharf Road, before passing under the West Gate Bridge and arriving at the port. Along the way almost a dozen roads were crossed, the majority of them being access roads to neighbouring wharf sheds.

The Webb Dock railway closed in 1996, sparing motorists the level crossings, but the trucks that took their place cause so much traffic congestion reopening the railway is a recurring idea.

We now skip forward a few years, over to Dock Link Road in West Melbourne.

Opened in the early 1990s so that trucks from the Port of Melbourne could access the South Dynon rail freight terminal, this level crossing was quite a beast – originally seven (!) tracks crossed the road, but was reduced to five in 2009 as part of the ARTC ‘Missing Link’ project.

Then end at the spartan facilities that pass for the railway station at Keilor Plains.

Keilor Plains station opened in 2002, as part of the extension of the electrified network from St Albans to Sydenham. Located a short distance south of Taylors Road, there was no easy way for passengers to access the new station, so a ground level pedestrian crossing was provided at the city end of the platform.

So there we have it!

• 1986: last new road/rail level crossing on a Melbourne suburban line (Maidstone Street, Altona on Werribee line)
• 1993: last new road/rail level crossing in Melbourne (Dock Link Road, West Melbourne)
• 2002: last new level crossing in Melbourne (Keilor Plains station, Sunbury line)

Footnote

By expanding the criteria to include expanded level crossings, the list grows longer: in 2007 Craigieburn station received a pedestrian crossing instead of an underpass, and in 2016 the crossing at Cardinia Road on the Pakenham line was duplicated.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post When did Melbourne stop building new level crossings? appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

You can find the media release here:

Crossings Gone, Tracks Lowered, Trains Returned
Premier of Victoria
31 July 2016

Trains return to the Frankston line tomorrow after three level crossings were removed during the longest rail line closure since construction of the City Loop more than 30 years ago.

To enable these works to occur, the Frankston line was closed between Caulfield and Moorabbin for more than five weeks, and replacement buses moved thousands of passengers every day.

This is the first time in Victoria’s history that three level crossings have been removed concurrently and means the Andrews Labor Government has now removed four level crossings in less than 18 months.

Longest rail line closure since the City Loop?

Five weeks is a long time to shut down a railway line, so one can be forgiven to think that it is a record breaker. So what other projects was it up against?

My first thought was the Mitcham level crossing removal project – in 2014 it removed two level crossings and delivered a new railway station at Mitcham, with a long concrete trench being built along a constrained rail corridor.

Close, but no cigar – the longest shutdown stopped trains for three weeks:

The major cut over construction phase occurred in January 2014 (Phase Two). The plan being a 3 week closure of the railway between Ringwood and Blackburn to cut over from the high level tracks and old railway station to the new low level tracks and railway station. The extensive construction during this period will be lowering the railway through Rooks Road on the same alignment.

My next thought was the Middleborough Road project – in 2007 it removed one level crossing and delivered a new railway station at Laburnum.

Getting a little closer, but trains only stopped for four weeks.

The major construction phase was completed in January 2007 (Phase Two). This included a 4 week closure of the railway line between Blackburn and Box Hill and the closure of Middleborough Road to through traffic.

I then drew a blank, until I was reminded that the city end of the Upfield line was closed for an extended period in the late 1990s to allow for the construction of the CityLink viaduct over the top.

The plan was announced in 1997:

Rail line closure for freeway construction
February 19, 1997
Sean Lennon

Victoria’s new transport minister, Robin Cooper, caused outrage in the northern suburbs on February 4, when he announced that the Upfield line, long a battleground between the authorities and residents, would close for six months to allow construction of the City Link freeway project.

This flies in the face of a public statement by the head of the Public Transport Corporation that the line would remain open during construction.

Under the government’s plan, the line would be closed between Flemington Bridge and North Melbourne stations, with buses ferrying people to Newmarket station, on the Broadmeadows line. From there, passengers would catch another train to the city.

Originally a six months closure was approved:

Having regard to construction and safety requirements, the State, the Company and the Trustee may agree that the section of the Upfield railway line between Racecourse Road and Arden Street be closed from 1 May 1997 to 31 October 1997 (or such other period as agreed), and on such terms and conditions as may be agreed.

But it took until May 1 1997 for the line south of Flemington Bridge to be closed to passengers, with it eventually reopening in February 1998 – nine months without trains!

But the real slowpoke was rebuilding the V/Line service to Albury in the late 2000s.

The last broad gauge train ran to Albury on November 8 2008, to allow the railway to be converted to standard gauge. Work took an eternity, with many ride quality issues, with V/Line services not returning to Albury until 26 June 2011 – 2 years, 7 months, and 16 days without trains.

Frankston line passengers – consider yourself lucky!

What about the City Loop?

Another point to examine is the comparison with the City Loop – construction of which was a massive project, but how did it disrupt rail services?

For a start, much of the City Loop was constructed beneath the streets of Melbourne’s CBD, with the only visible impact being the diversion of La Trobe Street between Swanston and Elizabeth Street to make way for the construction of Museum Station.

Public Record Office Victoria image (via ABC News)

It was where the tunnels connected into the existing rail network that more disruption occurred.

Public Record Office Victoria image (via ABC News)

But aerial views show that the impact was minor – existing trackage was slewed away from the work sites, allowing trains to continue to run.

Public Record Office Victoria image (via ABC News)

So were multiple week shutdowns required to build the City Loop? I doubt it.

Most concurrent level crossings removals?

The final fact to check is the “first time in Victoria’s history that three level crossings have been removed concurrently”.

The Mitcham level crossing removal project came close – it removed the Mitcham Road and Rooks Road level crossings as part of a single works package.

But we need to go much further back in time to blow that number out of the water – the first being the regrading and duplication of the railway between South Yarra and Caulfield in 1912–1915, the construction of five new stations at Malvern, Armadale, Toorak, Hawksburn and South Yarra, and the removal of seven level crossings.

But there was another project that removed even more level crossings – the regrading of the railway between Hawthorn and Camberwell in 1915–1920, the construction of three new stations at Glenferrie, Auburn and Camberwell, and the removal of eight level crossings – Glenferrie Road, William Street, John Street, Henry Street, Auburn Road, Albert Street, Burwood Road, and Burke Road.

So the sum up the Franskton line media release – other railway lines have been closed for longer periods for upgrade works, the City Loop is irrelevant when making these kinds of comparisons, and there have been much larger level crossing removal projects in the past that delivered far greater improvements to the rail network.

My verdict – nice try, but you’re going to need more than just a PR flack to pull the wool over my eyes!

Footnote

Somehow I forget about the Regional Fast Rail project works on the Bendigo line – the entire route between Sunbury and Bendigo was closed on 17 January 2005, reopening to Kyneton on 2 November 2005, and the rest of the line on 20 February 2006. That’s over a year of no trains!

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Fact check on the Frankston line appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Some history

In 1906 the first moves were made towards sewering Geelong when the Geelong Waterworks and Sewerage Trust was established. It was decided to build an ocean outfall to dispose of the waste, as it was simpler to construct and cheaper to operate, with a site south of Geelong being selected due to the favourable ocean currents.

The site was known as ‘Black Rock’ due to the basalt rocks that lined the shoreline. Work started in 1912 on the concrete sewer linking Geelong and Black Rock, with the first raw sewage being pumped into the ocean in 1917.

During the 1950s the population of Geelong took off, and so did the amount of raw sewage being pumped out into the sea, so moves were made to upgrade the sewerage system that served the city. The existing concrete sewer was corroding due to seawater backing up into the pipe, so a new sewer was laid parallel to the existing one, and a rudimentary treatment facility was opened at Black Rock in 1968.

Three comminutors ground up the solid waste into smaller pieces, which was then allowed to flow via gravity into the sea at low tide. At high tide a penstock prevented sea water from entering the plant, with archimedes screws being used to pump the waste into the sea.

Barwon Water photo from ‘Living By Water: a History of Barwon Water and its Predecessors’

Concern about the environment started to grow during the 1970s, with beaches near the Black Rock outfall had become popular with surfers, resulting in public protests about the raw sewage being sent out to sea.

In addition, the establishment of the Environment Protection Authority in 1972 to regulate waste disposal made things difficult for the water board, which resulted in an ultimatum – build a sewage treatment plant and underwater ocean outfall. Planning work commenced in 1983, and the upgraded facility finally opened in 1989.

The new ocean outfall was 1.2 kilometres long and 1.35 metres in diameter, with the steel pipeline being constructed on land and then dragged out to sea over a 48 hour period.

Barwon Water photo from ‘Living By Water: a History of Barwon Water and its Predecessors’

As for the treatment plant, raw sewage was lifted up from the sewer by archimedes screws.

Barwon Water photo from ‘Living By Water: a History of Barwon Water and its Predecessors’

And then passed through filter screens to eliminate any particles larger than one millimetre in size.

Barwon Water photo from ‘Living By Water: a History of Barwon Water and its Predecessors’

Despite the addition of the screening plant, the effluent being discharged at Black Rock would not meet future EPA requirements, so in 1994 work started on a biological treatment stage using the ‘Intermittently Decanted Extended Aeration‘ (IDEA) process.

Barwon Water photo from ‘Living By Water: a History of Barwon Water and its Predecessors’

Four aeration tanks were built, each 120 metres long by 60 metres wide, where microorganisms would digest the organic material in the aerated wastewater, eventually leaving class ‘C’ treated water that was suitable for irrigation purposes, and wet biosolids for disposal elsewhere.

Disposal of this wet sludge was the next problem for Barwon Water – with a water content of 85% it was initially stored at Black Rock, until they ran out of storage space in 2001, so as an interim solution the 140 tonnes of waste produced each day was trucked to the Western Treatment Plant in Werribee for drying.

Work was then started on a permanent facility at Black Rock to dry the biosolids and compress it into pellets of nutrient-rich fertiliser, which commenced operation in 2013.

With the solids now taken care of, the final step in closing the loop of sewage treatment was the treated water. Work started on the Black Rock Recycled Water Plant to produce class ‘A’ treated water, which has been supplied to residents of the new Armstrong Creek and Torquay North housing developments via a ‘purple pipe’ system since 2013.

Footnote

You can find the Black Rock treatment plant at the end of Blackrock Road in Connewarre.

Sidenote

My grandparents used to live near Black Rock, so the ‘poo farm’ was a landmark we drove past every time we paid a visit.

Every so often my grandfather would drive us out to poo farm, passing the wind turbine on Blackgate Road and parking the car at the end of the road. We could then walk west along the coast, passing the red and white concrete vent shaft of the original ocean outfall, and the round concrete turret that marks the replacement outfall.

During the 1990s there were also two additional structures on the coastline – the original 1960s comminutor plant, and a massive concrete chamber that allowed the raw sewage to be mixed before entering the sea. Presumably both have been demolished in the years since, as no trace of them can be found today.

My grandfather also happened to play golf with one of the facility managers, so in sometime in the mid-1990s he wrangled us a tour of the treatment plant itself. On the top floor they had a lookout pointed at the end of the ocean outfall, and a collection of items pulled out of the incoming sewage, but the highlight was seeing inside the massive screening filters – they looked like a gargantuan version of a clothes dryer.

Sources

• The 2005 book ‘Living By Water: a History of Barwon Water and its Predecessors’ by Leigh Edmonds provides a detailed history of the water and sewerage systems of Geelong – a PDF copy is on their website.
• Leighton Contractors installed the Black Rock ocean outfall in 1986 – they describe the process here.
• Barwon Water describe their biosolids drying plant and recycled water plant on their website.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Where does Geelong’s sewage go? appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

I started off at Wikipedia, and they put the final cost as $500 million, citing a Metropolitan Transit Authority publication from 1985.

I then stumbled upon the annual reports of the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority, the government body responsible for planning, financing and constructing the Melbourne underground rail loop. Their 1971-72 annual report had the following to say on the cost:

The engineering consortium of John Connell- Mott, Hay & Anderson, Hatch Associates Inc., and Jacobs Associates was commissioned in August 1971 to prepare a pre-design report for the construction of the Loop.

The Consultants presented their report in February 1972. The report was comprehensive and confirmed the basic concept of a four tunnel, three station system. It also included a conceptual design of the Loop and detailed cost estimates therefore, possible variations of the plan (the cost of which does not materially alter the total cost estimate) and detailed proposals for project management under the Authority’s direction.

The construction cost estimate of the basic plan adopted by the Authority is $117.23 million excluding land acquisition which may be separately financed, signalling and communications (which will largely be Victorian Railways’ matters), and administrative and service costs including consultancy fees and interest on monies borrowed. This estimate is based on prices current in the last quarter of 1971.

As early as 1974 concerns had been raised about the completion date being delayed.

In its initial 1971 planning the Authority scheduled the completion of the Loop for mid-1978 to accord with the expectation indicated by the Minister of Transport when the Authority was formed. That completion date was dependent upon the Authority’s loan allocation in each year being sufficient for its planned works programme. Limitations on the Authority’s loan allocation for 1972/3 and 1973/4 have resulted in the date for completion of the Loop being re-scheduled for the end of 1980 – with provision for the first trains to run through it by December, 1978.

The cost of the project had also started to climb.

Due largely to the increases in price of materials and labour that figure has now increased to $162.78 million based on April 1974 prices.

In each of the years that followed, the estimated cost increased and the opening date was moved further back – by mid 1977 the authority was now aiming for the first train to run in late 1979.

The Authority experienced a year of vigorous progress in all sections of the loop. The program was maintained providing for the opening of the Burnley loop and Museum Station in December 1979 and completion of all works in 1982. The estimated cost of the project rose 9% to $328 million reflecting the overall inflationary trend.

As for the cost increases, these were attributed to an increase in project scope, as the 1977-78 MURLA annual report details:

The revised construction cost estimate of the basic plan adopted by the Authority in 1972 (then estimated as $117.23 million at last quarter 1971 prices) is $252.7 million updated to June 1978, prices. The revised basic construction cost includes the cost of technical improvements including a high quality track support system to minimise vibrations transmitted through the ground to nearby buildings.

Within the provisions of the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Act 1970, as amended, various changes have been made progressively to the scope of the project which was adopted in 1972. The cost of these items, together with the cost of land acquisition, signalling and communications and administrative and service costs including consultancy fees, updated to June 1978, prices, is estimated to be $114.3 million.

Both construction and other costs continued to increase in the following years – with the 1979-80 MURLA annual report pushing back the first train even further.

The loops scheduled to be ready for operation in 1980 concurrently with Museum Station are the Burnley and the Caulfield-Sandringham. The Clifton Hill loop / City Circle and Parliament Station are planned to be available for operation by the end of 1981 and the North Melbourne loop and Flagstaff Station by the end of 1982.

In their 1980-81 annual report the authority celebrated the opening of the first part of the loop, but also pushed out the completion date of the remainder of the project.

The west booking hall of Museum Station is planned to be operational in the second quarter of 1982, followed by the south booking hall of Parliament Station in the third quarter. Flagstaff Station and the north booking hall of Parliament Station are planned to be transferred to VicRail during the first quarter of 1983, and the remaining loop for the lines through North Melbourne is planned to be transferred by mid 1983.

In 1983 the new Transport Act was passed and the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority was merged into the newly created Metropolitan Transit Authority, so the 1981-1982 MURLA annual report was their last – construction cost estimates being as follows:

The revised construction cost estimate of the basic plan for the construction of the Loop adopted by the Authority in 1972 (then estimated as $117.23 million at last quarter 1971 prices) is $287.20 million updated to June 1982 prices. This estimate and the earlier estimate exclude land acquisition, signalling and communications, and administrative and service costs including consultancy fees.

Within the provisions of the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Act, as amended, various changes have been made progressively (as previously reported) to the scope of the project which was adopted in 1972. The cost of these changes and the exclusions stated above (but not including the cost of land acquired specifically for redevelopment) is currently estimated a $178.90 million. On this basis the total estimate as updated to June 1982, prices is $466.10 million.

The previous completion date of mid 1983 came and went, so it was the Metropolitan Transit Authority that took the credit in their 1984-85 annual report for the opening of the final stage of the City Loop – only seven years behind the initial estimates made in 1971!

Highlights this year included the opening in May 1985 of Flagstaff, the final station to be completed in the 18km of rail track in the underground Loop. The $650 million Loop project, one of the largest undertakings in Melbourne’s history,carries more than 600 trains per day.

So in the end I’ve got something resembling an answer – the City Loop cost between $500 and $650 million to build at 1985 prices, the exact figure varying if land acquisition, signalling and communications costs (funded by the Victorian Railways) and administrative and service costs (such as consultancy fees and interest on monies borrowed) are included.

A comparison

Run the construction cost figures through the Reserve Bank’s inflation calculator and the City Loop cost $1.3 to $1.7 billion to build at 2013 prices – about the same as adding a lane to the Monash – CityLink – West Gate Freeway corridor between 2007 and 2010.

However a simple indexation won’t tell us how much it would cost to build the City Loop today – construction expenses have risen much faster than inflation in the past decade, which would put the final dollar figure far higher. Alan Davies delves deeper into the issue in his blog posts “Why is infrastructure so bloody expensive?” and “Why do subways cost so much more here than elsewhere?“.

Tracking the cost increases

I have tabulated the “construction” and “total minus interest” figures from each Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority annual report – all figures are in $ millions, and have not been adjusted for inflation.

Sources

• Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority annual reports:
  • 1970-71
  • 1971-72
  • 1972-73
  • 1973-74
  • 1974-75
  • 1975-76
  • 1976-77
  • 1977-78
  • 1978-79
  • 1979-80
  • 1980-81
  • 1981-82
• Metropolitan Transit Authority 1984-85 annual report
• Metropolitan Transit Authority booklet published following the completion of the City Loop

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post How much did the City Loop cost to build? appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.