I would imagine that western port would be best served by standard gauge and therefore compatible with the national rail system. When that happens, it has to happen, then I would assume re-routing to Dandenong is far more viable than placing a SG line from ? Caulfield to Frankstone. I also could assume SG to Dandenong is also required for the Gippsland leg.

If and when this occurs then the arguments for interference of pass services beyond Baxter are moot. Before Baxter the BG line would be on its own.

If this were my little sand pit, I would use the freeway as the new rail line and take it almost all the way.

Another thing to consider is the freeway at the city end has a reservation that brings it out at Warragul road and South Road. To the Dandenong rail head its only 5 city blocks. Its an opportunity to thrash road transport as it is.

With the exception of the tight squeeze at Hughesdale, it seems there is plenty of room for quad track and dual island stations in a trench. The affected stations are each surrounded by plenty of carparking and open space, the open corridor at Murrumbeena is 50m wide for example, and closer to 90m if the terraced shops alongside platform two were removed (which would be a shame in my opinion, despite being run down I think they have a lot of historic value).

Such grade separations are expensive, as Springvale Rd will attest. However with an integrated approach there is a lot of ‘symbiotic’ value to be had in a project. The grade separation itself would improve road congestion throughout that part of the city by removing the barrier arms. Pedestrian access would be improved, as these town centres are likewise severed in two in terms of pedestrian access (all too often I experience the frustration of not being able to reach the platform because the train I am rushing to catch has triggered the crossing gates closed in front of me). The quad tracking would improve the capacity and reliability of the line significantly, particularly for express and regional services. Lowering the track would necessitate new efficiently designed stations, and would allow modification of the surrounding road network making seamless bus to train transfers a possibility. Perhaps most importantly lowering the line would allow development at street level above the track and station. Retailing could be built above the track providing a seamless main street shopping area, while the station precincts could be re-developed with mixed use commercial, residential and retail at potentially high densities.

For example Carnegie station and its car parking covers approximately 15,000 sqm of land, with another 3,000 or so above the corridor on the opposite side of Koornang Rd. With 65% site coverage and five story buildings, there is almost 60,000sqm of floorspace that could be sold or leased to offset the costs of the grade separation and quad tracking. A multi level car park could be built within the development if maintaining park and ride capacity was desired, although decent bus feeders might be a better way to replace that. If taller apartment towers were considered appropriate for the area hundreds of new homes could be integrated in each centre.

This sort of development would be the very definition of a transit oriented urban village: Moderate density mixed use development centred on a rail and bus interchange in the middle of an established local centre. Not only would this improve the efficiency of the existing road and rail networks plus greatly add to the urban design and layout of each of the centres, it would also go some way to achieving the sustainability goals of Melbourne 2030 by meeting growth in established areas. Rather than new car based suburban lots on the fringe of the metropolis, some growth could be met within the urban area in a location with excellent local services and high quality public transport.

The one problem is that such a grand scheme would require an unprecedented level of cooperation between the rail, road and urban development sectors of the government.

And that is the ‘cheat’ the road network uses. Up the Dandenong Creek Valley to Ringwood, then tunnel through to the Koonung Creek which carves a path towards the Yarra at Bulleen. I can see another tunnel being popular with the population or treasury .

Interestingly apart from a few cuttings that had to be dug between Caulfield and Richmond, the Dandenong line itself takes the straightest, flattest route available from Melbourne to Dandenong (and from there towards Cranbourne and Tooradin on the water).

We’ve discussed proposals to quad the Dandenong line but without significant grade sepping you won’t get the speeds and frequency of service required. Which leads me to other conclusions:

1. The whole rural state network should have been standardised when the ALP promised it. I’m assuming that it would have been Pakenham to Bairnsdale because Sale-Bairnsdale line was effectively restored, the line from Pakenham to Traralgon has been significantly rebuilt and both of those jobs could have been done to Standard Gauge. With that done, you might have only needed a single track SG line between Dandy and Pakenham as Vline could be timetabled around this limitation. Freight is infrequent and the Kilmore East Apex can reach that location on the SG, as can the logs to Geelong and paper. I’m assuming Koala was already gone and the Lyndhurst cement not far from it.

You would then have had a fairly seamless operation for those interstate and local traffics on the SG.

2. Rebuilding the Dandenong corridor is not impossible, but would be expensive, and would imply a new approach to transport and urban planning in that area. I would suggest very intensive land use, demolition of the remaining strip shop sections that encroach on the corridor (eg Oakleigh and Hughesdale, Clayton) and full sepping the corridor given it would be running a train every minute each direction in peak. Would really need Dandenong to be next Parramatta and Pakenham the next Penrith to make it worthwhile.

The best alignment is probably along EastLink, quad Lilydale to run up through North Croydon to Bend of Islands, and then wind your way through Plenty and north around the growth area.

Alternatively, go the other way: follow the Peninsula freeway/Melbourne Rd. to Portsea, punch a tunnel to Point Lonsdale, and take Hastings/Pakenham/Dandenong/Ringwood traffic through Geelong.

Ricc, I know this is an old article, but after reading through it again I realise what needs to be thrown into the mix – standard gauge access to the Port of Hastings.

My Dad, who operates a lubricants company and therefore knows where all the heavy industries are, says that the transport needs have shifted again. They moved from West Melbourne to Dandenong South a few decades ago; then they moved to the Hallam area; now they’re all going out to Pakenham.

His idea is that we need a standard gauge line to come over from Somerton across country to Epping (potentially another big transport hub), go around Hurstbridge and Lilydale and the rest of suburbia, hit Pakenham, go round Cranbourne and then basically head down the Westernport to Hastings. I’ve told him the gradients are going to kill it, but I have to agree with him that a) something needs to be done about Hastings because Melbourne won’t handle all the port traffic we’re going to need, and b) there is no way the suburban rail lines are going to handle freight, it’s difficult enough with the small amount of freight they have today.

I’d be interested to know your thoughts.