Pakenhamsaint
Hall of Famer
- Jan 5, 2011
- 47,547
- 39,597
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Not really.But push is becoming shove to resolve this mess
Slowing the trains down in that section was one of the mitigation strategies
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Not really.But push is becoming shove to resolve this mess
You disagree its a costly stuff-up?Short platforms are an easy fix.
The rest of the world manages when trains are longer than the platform.
The stuff up is not having a co-ordinated transport plan. There's too many organisations all trying to do different things all at once.You disagree its a costly stuff-up?
Why then has the government promised to extend the platform if its not an issue?
You sound like you work in the industry?The stuff up is not having a co-ordinated transport plan. There's too many organisations all trying to do different things all at once.
The crossing removal done by the LXRA, the 9 car trains by the Regional Rail Revival side of things.
Two separate projects all not talking to each other.
The easy fix is have the conductor at the rear doorway as they do now at Heathcote Junction.
If you want put technology in like we have on the Pakenham/Cranbourne line with the ASDO(Automatic selective door operation) beacons.
Friends and family do.You sound like you work in the industry?
Yeah they do. Wondabyne Station is on the Sydney-Newcastle line and it's actually shorter than a single train carriage!Short platforms are an easy fix.
The rest of the world manages when trains are longer than the platform.
There's quite a few in Sydney that can't take an 8V.Yeah they do. Wondabyne Station is on the Sydney-Newcastle line and it's actually shorter than a single train carriage!
Wondabyne railway station
Wondabyne railway station is a railway station on the Newcastle and Central Coast Line in the NSW TrainLink Intercity network. The station is noted for its remoteness and having an extraordinarily short platform (like Zig Zag), which is less than a train carriage long. The station is a request...nswtrains.fandom.com
Writing is well and truly on the wallTime to scrap the SRL. Its too expensive . Not that Junta Jacinta will listen.
There's lots of reasons why this might have happened in a planned way.You disagree its a costly stuff-up?
Why then has the government promised to extend the platform if its not an issue?
Yes. But it seems to come back to the old chestnut that this government repeatedly ignores - due diligence.There's lots of reasons why this might have happened in a planned way.
There might have been something preventing building the full platform length (like a power pole or sewer pit which would be expensive to move or land acquisition of the property next door)- and at the time they were building, it was only future-proofing. So why spend a million now for something which might not be needed for 10 years? Better to come back and do it when it's needed in some instances.
Can also very much see how some numbnuts in the structures team looked at a plan and didn't think it would be a problem shortening a platform without consulting the technical requirements or operations teams.
The most likely reason is the future operational requirements weren't communicated in time to the client-side delivery team for the station. As Pakenhamsaint said, not really surprising given they're being delivered different teams reporting to different parts of the state.There's lots of reasons why this might have happened in a planned way.
There might have been something preventing building the full platform length (like a power pole or sewer pit which would be expensive to move or land acquisition of the property next door)- and at the time they were building, it was only future-proofing. So why spend a million now for something which might not be needed for 10 years? Better to come back and do it when it's needed in some instances.
Not really plausible given the hold points you have to release on these sort of projects.Can also very much see how some numbnuts in the structures team looked at a plan and didn't think it would be a problem shortening a platform without consulting the technical requirements or operations teams.
If they built it 60m+ longer than they needed, but just 10m shy of future proofing. It suggests to me they knew what they were aiming for.The most likely reason is the future operational requirements weren't communicated in time to the client-side delivery team for the station. As Pakenhamsaint said, not really surprising given they're being delivered different teams reporting to different parts of the state.
Not really plausible given the hold points you have to release on these sort of projects.
Designs evolve, highly possible that 215m was the future proofed option at the time then it became 225m but nobody updated the design of the other project.If they built it 60m+ longer than they needed, but just 10m shy of future proofing. It suggests to me they knew what they were aiming for.