Rowville Rail Study Preliminary Rail Design Report FINAL

Preliminary
Rail Design
Report
December 2012
This document forms part of the Rowville Rail Feasibility Report and should be read in the
context of the broader report. The study teams, including SKM, Mott MacDonald, Hassell
and Phoenix Facilitation, have prepared this report following appointment by the Victorian
State Government.
The Rowville Rail Feasibility Report is a study investigating the feasibility of a heavy rail line
from Rowville connecting into the existing train network at Huntingdale Station on the
Pakenham/Cranbourne lines. This is Phase 1 of a two part study investigating initial
engineering, architectural, environmental and operational considerations. It has also
included consultation with the community and stakeholders through various methods.
The overall Rowville Rail Feasibility Report is made up of 9 parts:
Main report
Preliminary rail design report
Travel demand modelling report
Sustainability considerations report
Environment and planning investigation report
Station layout and urban design report
Consultation report
Concept timetabling and operations report
Final submissions report
Table of Contents
1.
Engineering Summary ................................................................................................... 5
2.
Design Brief.................................................................................................................... 6
3.
Basis of Design .............................................................................................................. 6
4.
Physical constraints and opportunities ...................................................................... 7
5.
Alignment Options ....................................................................................................... 10
6.
Alignment Option Selection ........................................................................................ 13
7.
Civil Structures Required ............................................................................................ 30

7.1
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 30
7.2
Tunnel cross section requirements .................................................................. 34
7.3
Cut-and-cover tunnel........................................................................................ 36
7.4
Open Cut .......................................................................................................... 38
7.5
Elevated Sections (Viaduct) ............................................................................. 41
7.6
7.5.1
Typical Design Elements ............................................................................ 42
7.5.2
Elevated Station Design .............................................................................. 47
7.5.3
Approach Ramps and Tunnel Portals ......................................................... 49
7.5.4
Trackform .................................................................................................... 49
7.5.5
Design issues .............................................................................................. 49
7.5.6
Construction Issues .................................................................................... 53
Bridges ............................................................................................................. 57
7.6.1
Princes Highway grade separation ............................................................. 57
7.6.2
Monash Freeway grade separation ............................................................ 57
7.6.3
East Link grade separation, Alignment A or A* ........................................... 57
7.6.4
East Link grade separation, Alignment C .................................................... 57
7.7
Sprayed Concrete Lined Tunnel ...................................................................... 58
7.8
TBM Bored tunnel ............................................................................................ 62
7.9
7.10
7.8.1
General Principles ....................................................................................... 62
7.8.2
Twin tunnels versus single bore .................................................................. 64
Station design .................................................................................................. 66

7.9.1
Underground Stations ................................................................................. 66
7.9.2
Elevated Stations ........................................................................................ 67
Fire and Life Safety .......................................................................................... 68
7.10.1 Fire Engineering Process ............................................................................ 68

7.10.2 Applicable Legislation & Standards ............................................................ 68
7.10.3 Principal Characteristics ............................................................................. 69
7.10.4 Fire Safety Objectives ................................................................................. 70
7.10.5 Fire Hazards & Risks .................................................................................. 70
7.10.6 Concept Requirements -Tunnels ................................................................ 71
7.10.7 Concept Requirements - Stations ............................................................... 72
7.11
Ventilation Concepts ........................................................................................ 74

7.11.1 Tunnel Ventilation System .......................................................................... 74
7.11.2 Station Ventilation ....................................................................................... 74
7.11.3 Public and Back of House Areas ................................................................ 75
7.11.4 Incident Ventilation Operations ................................................................... 75
7.12
8.
9.
Drainage........................................................................................................... 78
Signalling...................................................................................................................... 79
8.1
Basis of Design ................................................................................................ 79
8.2
Existing infrastructure....................................................................................... 79
8.3
Implementing new Rowville Rail Link ............................................................... 80
Traction Power and Overhead Line Electrification ................................................... 84

9.1
Power ............................................................................................................... 84
9.1.1
Tie Stations ................................................................................................. 84
9.1.2
Substations ................................................................................................. 84
9.1.3
Rowville Line Power Requirements ............................................................ 85
9.2
Electrolysis ....................................................................................................... 86
9.3
Overhead ......................................................................................................... 87
9.3.1
Conductors .................................................................................................. 88
9.3.2
Interface with Dandenong corridor .............................................................. 88
9.3.3
Open route .................................................................................................. 88
9.3.4
Elevated and viaducts ................................................................................. 89
9.3.5
Tunnels and restricted space ...................................................................... 89
9.3.6
Stabling ...................................................................................................... 95
10. Railway Communication ............................................................................................. 96

11. Constructability.......................................................................................................... 99
11.1
Project Timeline ............................................................................................... 99
11.2
Noise and vibration impacts ............................................................................. 99
11.3
Temporary access Shafts .............................................................................. 100

11.3.1 Cut and Cover Tunnel ............................................................................... 100
11.3.2 Road Header Tunnel ................................................................................. 100
11.3.3 TBM Tunnel .............................................................................................. 100
11.4
Construction Method ...................................................................................... 101

11.4.1 Overall Alignment Considerations ............................................................. 101
11.4.2 Station areas ............................................................................................. 101
11.4.3 Below Ground Alignment .......................................................................... 105
11.4.4 Viaducts .................................................................................................... 112
11.4.5 Railway Infrastructure (Tracks, Power and Signalling) ............................. 113
11.5
Work Sites ...................................................................................................... 113
11.6
Traffic Management ....................................................................................... 115

11.6.1 Huntingdale Station Precinct ..................................................................... 116
11.6.2 North and Wellington Roads ..................................................................... 117
11.6.3 Stud Road and Rowville Station Precinct.................................................. 117
11.6.4 Major Road Crossings .............................................................................. 117
11.7
Maintenance Access Requirements............................................................... 118
11.8
Protection of Operational Rail Infrastructure .................................................. 118
11.9
Operational Requirements ............................................................................. 120
11.10
Rail, Road and Pedestrian Protection Measures ........................................... 120
12. Railway Operational Safety ....................................................................................... 122

13. Operational Maintenance .......................................................................................... 122
14. Developments from Previous Report ...................................................................... 123
14.1
Knox City Council report Rowville Railway Pre-Feasibility Study 2004 ......... 123
15. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 125

Appendix A: Civil structures
Appendix B: Signalling Schematic
Appendix C: Overhead Line and Power Schematic
Appendix D: Project Timeline
Appendix E: Tunnelling Advice
Appendix F: Geotechnical Report

Appendix G: Utilities Information
Appendix H: Alignment Drawings
Appendix I: Flood Levels
1.
Engineering Summary
This report is based on a through suburban electric train service between Melbourne CBD
and Rowville. The alignment generally follows Wellington Road, with two options shown for
the approach to Rowville. Buried and elevated track would require engineering structures
with options for these presented in the report, and a number of alternative vertical alignment
options are shown on the alignment drawings.
The issues relating to the construction phase are reviewed, and ideas for managing these
are documented.
From Huntingdale station towards Rowville, on leaving Huntingdale the Rowville line is
shown located underground under the North Road flyover. Demolition of a small area of
existing buildings on the south side of North Road would be required, unless a short length
of mined tunnel is used, or a reduced radius curve with corresponding reduced line speed.
The report discusses high level engineering options for the redeveloped Huntingdale Station.
Along North Road to Monash Station the central median generally provides suitable corridor
width for open cut construction, with bridges to provide road crossings. Cut and cover
construction would provide additional amenity value at ground level.
To the east of Monash Station the ground level drops relatively sharply, indicating viaduct
construction as appropriate on track alignment grounds. The viaduct would extend to the
east of Mulgrave Station. From there the alignment descends below ground level on the east
side of the Monash Freeway.
High ground, and the need to remove a peak in the track alignment, require the track to
pass below ground level at Waverley Park Station. The tunnel emerges from the ground
onto viaduct, on the north side of Wellington Road, adjacent to Jacksons Road, before the
Dandenong Valley Parklands.
Two main options exist for the approach to the terminal station across the Dandenong
Creek flood plain crossing beneath Stud Road into the Stud Park shopping centre area, or
alternatively following Wellington Road below ground, curving northwards at Stud Road. An
alternative location for Rowville station on the corner of Wellington and Stud Roads has also
been considered.
Buried and elevated structures would be required to account for ground topography and
other alignment constraints. At this stage of the design process, it is considered feasible for
cut and cover construction methods to be used for a large majority of the route requiring
buried track. However, alternatives are considered in this report. Precast concrete viaduct is
suggested for the elevated structure.
Timescales for construction are anticipated to be in the order of four years from start of site
works to commissioning, with a significant lead-in period for design, procurement and
planning. Temporary lane closures or diversions would most likely be required in order to
provide sufficient space for construction operations.
2.
Design Brief
The Department of Transport document Feasibility Study for the proposed Rowville Rail
Line, Study Brief, 25 March 2011 in conjunction with the SKM document Technical
Investigation Plan Rowville Rail Study, 29 June 2011, form the brief for this report.
3.
Basis of Design
The following functionality and other requirements have been used in this engineering study:
The proposed Rowville Railway line will provide a high quality heavy rail link to Monash
and Knox communities
The project will support new services from Huntingdale to Rowville via Monash
University
Dual Tracks to be provided from Huntingdale to Rowville
May be constructed in stages
Stabling and turn-back facilities to be addressed
Options for connection to the Dandenong rail corridor at Huntingdale and track
configurations
Existing structures to be assessed at high level
It is desirable that the line between Huntingdale and Rowville should cater for an
operational speed of at least 130km/h and 80km/h through tunnels
Minimum three trains per hour initially, with provision for 6 trains per hour as the
Dandenong Corridor is upgraded
Normal standards apply for track geometry including: maximum track gradient 2%
generally and 0.66% at stations for straight track
Construction timescale to be addressed
Consideration needed for the natural and built environments, and sustainability
Maintain, in some form, the existing pedestrian and cycle functionality currently located
in the central reserve between Huntingdale station area and Clayton Road, or state
reasons why this is not possible
4.
Physical constraints and opportunities
The alignment lies generally in an existing well developed urban setting with many roads
potentially intersected by the track alignment. Therefore, the alignment would be
predominantly on viaduct or below ground. The alignment drawings are shown in Appendix
H.
Set out in the following table is a summary of the significant physical constraints to the rail
alignment along the route.
Significant physical constraints
along the track alignment from
West to East
Constraint
Implication for alignment
Rail connection to Dandenong

rail corridor
Rail connection should provide a grade separated junction, with the

Rowville track profile either over or under the existing Dandenong tracks
Suitable location of Huntingdale

station post commissioning
Rowville line
Rowville tracks connecting into the Dandenong line using an elevated

grade separated alignment would require the Rowville platforms to be
located approximately 200m north (towards Melbourne) than the existing
platforms, this is probably too far for a reasonable interchange with busses.
Rowville tracks connecting via a below ground alignment would enable the
Rowville platforms to be located below but in the same plan location as the
existing station
Redevelopment of the station would be required for either option
Future Dandenong Rail Corridor

rail lines
The alignment does not preclude, at high level concept stage, possible
future tracks which may be provided as part of upgrade works which are
currently undefined
North Road Flyover

Major highway bridge
immediately South of
Huntingdale Station
This road bridge constrains the option of an elevated departure from

Huntingdale station. New elevated track should lie on north side of North
Rd to avoid extreme elevation required to cross the flyover. This would
require property acquisitions. The elevated structure span over the North
Road northern (eastbound) approach road would be at a skew requiring
orthogonal cross spans or a single span of approximately 100m.
New track passing to the south of the flyover should be at-grade or below
ground level, to avoid clashes with existing infrastructure. The foundations
for the flyover structure would require protection and may affect the
alignment
Oakleigh Army Barracks
The barracks fronting North Road may constrain the ability to construct
shallow tunnel they may require demolition and re-construction, or a
smaller radius curve to avoid them. The small commercial single storey
building at 1340 North Road is similarly a constraint.
High ground on East side of

Princes Highway
Creates significant incline for track from Huntingdale Station to Princes

Highway that, due to steep topography, precludes use of viaduct along this
section and indicates track should be below ground level.
Road median width east of

Monash University station area
The below ground railway breaks ground at this area, it is desirable that the
portal structure fits within the median width. Local road lane
reconfigurations may be required
Undulating ground between
Variable height viaduct, or variable depth buried structure, to smooth peaks

West to East
Blackburn Road and Monash
Freeway
and troughs to minimise power requirement
Monash Freeway and Wellington

Road flyover
Track level to match Wellington Road as cannot be lowered as would

impact major bridge and Monash Freeway
Track level above road would not accomplish any useful end
High ground on East side of

Monash freeway
To avoid excessive gradients, track must be below ground. The track

would be at significant depth below ground to provide gradient on east side
meeting standards
A station in this area would have platforms below ground
Jacksons Road
Important right turn provision exists at this junction, which coincides with
the location that the rail line breaks ground
Dandenong Creek flood plain
Flood level and freeboard requirement beneath structure would dictate rail
elevation
Power Transmission lines
Clearance between rail infrastructure and power lines required
EastLink
Clearance above EastLink is required, in close proximity to the constraint

provided by the power transmission lines
Approach to Stud Park Shopping

Centre (Alignment A*)
1)
2)
3)
4)
Heritage building
Housing and social buildings property acquisitions likely
Stud Road track would need to be below ground
Topography this means the station would be deep
East Link (Alignment C)
Track level at grade, above Wellington Road, or diverted to the north or

south, to avoid impact on major bridge and Monash Freeway
Track level above road would avoid significant disruption to the existing
road intersection (on and off ramps, existing traffic light changes and
provision of U-turn for Wellington Road traffic)
Power transmission lines over

Wellington Road
Use of cut-and-cover or bored tunnel, because at-grade or viaduct would

infringe clearance to power lines
Wellington Road Median east of

Eastlink
A number of right turn lanes exist to the east of Eastlink, which coincide
with the rail lines below ground/above ground interface point
Rowville Main Drain beneath

Wellington Road
Profile of the below ground track needs to be sufficiently deep to avoid

affecting surface drainage
North side of Wellington Road

from EastLink to Stud Road little land width available also
entrances to industrial area
properties
South side of Wellington Road may offer a better corridor for open-cut
alongside Wellington Road
Existing buildings on north west

corner of Wellington/Stud Road
intersection
Both options would require tunnel beneath buildings and therefore possible
property acquisitions
Existing housing at Rowville on

West Side of Stud Road bounded
by Waradgery Drive and
Lakeview Avenue
Forms a barrier to open-cut and viaduct construction
Stud Road limited width
The east side of Stud Road has a corridor of land that should be wide

West to East
enough for open-cut or for diverted road carriage way. If not, viaduct
construction would be the most economic solution, but is close to
residential properties.
Existing utilities and services
Other than the power transmission lines mentioned above there are no
major existing utilities or services impacted by the rail alignment that would
provide a significant constraint to the track alignment.
See Appendix G for details of the major utilities identified.
Biggest physical opportunities

West to East
Opportunity
Implication for alignment
Width of median strip/width of

North Road corridor
Open-cut track section can be used along the median in locations where
there is no right turn lane reducing median width. It would require suitable
barriers to separate the highway traffic and the railway (some at-grade
overbridges would be required to maintain road system function from side
roads). Cut and cover would be needed at right turn lane locations.
Strip of land on south edge of

Wellington Road from EastLink
to Stud Road (Wellington Road
option)
Allows space for open-cut or viaduct track section for Alignment C into
Rowville
Strip of land on east edge of

Stud Road from Wellington Road
to Stud Park shopping centre
Allows space for track for Alignment B* or C into Rowville
Strip of land between EastLink

and Stud Road lying between the
industrial area on the north side
of Wellington Road and Kingston
Links golf course
Allows space for an open-cut /at-grade relatively low cost / lowest cost
entry to Rowville on Alignment B but restricted by unfavourable station
location at Stamford Inn or Alignment B* with a more favourable station
location at Stud Park shopping centre but requiring the demolition of
significant quantity of residential properties near Stamford Inn.(this
alignment option has not been taken further)
Undeveloped areas either side of

Eastlink:
Dandenong Valley Parklands
South of Caribbean Lake
Allows space for an viaduct/at-grade /open-cut entry to Rowville on

Alignment A and A* to a favoured station location at Stud Park shopping
centre
5.
Alignment Options
Referring to the alignment plan drawings contained in Appendix H, it is useful to consider the
alignment in three sections
West end Huntingdale Station connection
Central section along North Road and Wellington Road
East end at Rowville
In the central section the track alignment would be along the road median, or nearly so, with
its position refined to reduce the impact on existing roads and services, and to optimise the
location of new stations.
West end at Huntingdale Station connection options
A reduced service in the form of a shuttle service only between Rowville and Huntingdale
opens up the possibility of a single track connection at Huntingdale. The options are:
a)
Re-locate Huntingdale station northward towards

Flinders St and provide an elevated track to
Rowville curving on viaduct on the north side of
North Road to a twin track viaduct along North Road
b)
Provide an at-grade track southward under North

Road flyover looping and climbing Eastward to a
twin track viaduct along North Road
We have not taken this option further because it does not support the
operational requirements of the rail link.
During the study process the likely service pattern of a frequent through service between
Rowville and Flinders Street has been confirmed. The options are:
A. Piggy-back tracks at Huntingdale station with the
Rowville tracks passing below ground southward
under North Road flyover looping and climbing
eastward to North Road
B. Relocate Huntingdale station northward towards
Flinders St using piggy-back tracks with the
Rowville tracks curving on viaduct on the north side
of North Road to a twin track viaduct along North
Road
10
Central section along North Road and Wellington Road

Track would be located generally along the central median, either above or below ground
depending on route topography and alignment constraints.
Where cut-and-cover tunnel is adopted the alignment may be best along the centre of one of
the existing carriageways so that the other carriageway may be kept open during
construction.
Where viaduct is adopted the alignment may be best along the centre of the median which
minimises modifications and remedial work to the existing road.
East end at Rowville alignment options

The initial options for the approach to Rowville have been identified in Figure 1, described as
A, A*, B, B* and C. As the study progressed, these options have been refined and named
Golf Course North, Golf Course South and Wellington Road approaches.
Option A/A* (Golf Course North)
Option A entirely avoids existing buildings, and alignment A*
provides a direct route to perhaps the most favourable station
location for the future developed Rowville although residential
property acquisition would be required.
Option B (Golf Course South)

It avoids existing buildings and provides a direct route without
property acquisition to a station in the area of the Stamford Inn carpark.
Option B* (Golf Course South)

As B above except the track curves northward across residential
housing and the Stamford Inn area to Stud Road and on to a
station near the existing shopping centre. Residential property
acquisition would be required.
11
Option C (Wellington Road)

A similar concept to the heavy rail options in the Knox Report but
with a simplified curve at the Wellington Road/Stud Road junction.
This avoids residential property acquisition but some commercial
property acquisition would be needed
Figure 1: East End at Rowville Alignment Options
12
6.
Alignment Option Selection

Alignment options and discussion
Rail Connection at Huntingdale

An extract of the alignment drawing is below:
Option 1: Tracks on elevated structure and alignment is north of North Road (see
next sheet for layout plan at North Road)
Characteristics:
Huntingdale station would be relocated in the up direction (towards

Melbourne) to provide space for the curve into North Road. Track
would be elevated on viaduct on the north side of North Road, and
along North Road
Issues:
requires the station to be relocated 200m further away from the

transport interchange
requires property acquisition on north side of North Road
long span required to clear North Road approach at skew
noise and visual impact on local residents due to elevated position
existing road intersections would be affected at the transition area

between the elevated track and below ground track
Advantages:
likely lower cost than Option 2 which uses buried track

Option 2: Tracks below ground on alignment south of North Road
Characteristics:
The Rowville tracks pass below ground southward under the North
Road flyover looping and climbing Eastward to North Road
Issues:
would need to avoid existing North Road flyover foundations (a

detailed investigation would be needed to quantify the impact)
would significantly affect the Army Barracks and also the adjacent
13

small single storey building (this could be avoided by a smaller
radius curve with corresponding reduction in design speed to
65km/h
Advantages:
Makes use of land area which in the most part is not built up
retains the existing location of Huntingdale station which is well

suited for bus interchange
Rail Connection at Huntingdale: conclusion
The preferred option is Option 2: tracks below ground on an alignment to the south
of North Road. The tunnelling method would depend on availability of the Army
barracks site for open excavations for cut and cover construction, which depends
on agreements to be addressed as the scheme develops, and on the cost
comparison between the different tunnelling types. Alternatively reducing the
design speed of the railway to 65km/h at this location would mean the alignment
could be adjusted to avoid the buildings. Section 7.1 describes the tunnel types in
more detail.
It would be worthwhile to investigate further during the next design stage the
possibility of a shallow tunnel beneath the barracks without demolition (the Eastern
Busway project in Brisbane accomplished a shallow tunnel with 5m cover and
10mm recorded settlement), this would require a detailed assessment of the
ground conditions and acceptable settlement limits for the building.
The major factor in this recommendation is moving Huntingdale station further
away from the bus interchange (a requirement of Option 1) would reduce the
interchange functionality, and additionally the elevated alignment would have a
significant impact on road intersections along North Road.
Station constructability considerations would suggest constructing the new
platforms parallel to and off-line from the existing platforms, as described in more
detail in Section 11 (Constructability).
14

North Road (Huntingdale to Princes Highway)
An extract of the alignment drawing is below, from west (top) to east (bottom):
The North Road transport corridor has a varying width of 50-60m and comprises six
through traffic lanes, two bus lanes, an 18-20m median with cycle/foot path and
relatively narrow verges. In order to limit traffic disruption during the construction
stage, the median is the most suitable location for the railway, with the existing
cycle/foot path moved to a re-modelled verge area.
Option 1: Tracks on elevated structure
Characteristics:
the elevated structure would run along road median

Issues:
the largely residential nature of the area would act against this option
undulating ground would require the smoothed rail alignment to be

raised to provide clearance above high points on the ground and
therefore significant structure height
noise and vibration issues associated with this structure type
urban planning issues of a major elevated structure scale and

height in residential area
Advantages:
15
would enable a shallow or ground level Monash University station

better travel experience for rail passengers (natural light and views)
likely to be lower cost than the below ground option
Option 2: Tracks below ground

Characteristics:
the railway would run below ground, most likely within the central
median
Issues:
costs for buried rail would be higher than elevated
shallow tunnel may cause noise and vibration issues at the surface
requires the Monash University station to be at significant depth

below ground level
groundwater flows may be disrupted by the structure, requiring

diversion drainage
services such as sewers crossing Wellington Road would need to be

intercepted and diverted
Advantages:
lower urban planning impact than elevated structure

Option 3: Tracks at grade with shallow cuttings and embankments
Characteristics:
the railway would be as close to ground level as possible, within the

central median
Issues:
unacceptable effects on existing road intersections
would cause an impermeable barrier along North Road preventing

pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists from crossing
noise and vibration issues
difficult to achieve without significant retaining walls due to ground

topography
Advantages:
lower cost than alternatives
North Road: conclusion

The preferred option is Option 2: tracks below ground. The alignment would be
along the central median unless planning at detailed design stage indicated
advantages of placing the tracks below one or more trafficked lanes, using cut and
16

cover construction. The elevated structure and at-grade track options would
generate unacceptably high negative urban planning issues.
Option 1: tracks on elevated structure, is not recommended, largely because the
undulating ground would require the smoothed rail alignment to be raised to provide
clearance above high points on the ground meaning significant structure height.
The impact on local residences is considered too high. Additionally traversing the
Princes Highway would require a significant engineering structure to span across
the intersection without the addition of piers within the intersection area.
The construction of tracks below ground could be by a number of methods,
described generally as either open cut structure or buried structure.
The open cut structure would provide light and natural ventilation, but would require
substantial traffic safety barriers which have a tendency to restrict the ability for
road users to cross Wellington Road. Road crossing points could be provided by
bridges to reduce the barrier effect.
A buried structure could be provided by either a cut and cover structure or
driven/bored tunnelling methods.
Section 7.1 describes the tunnel types in more detail.
A major advantage of the cut and cover option is the shallower depth of the rail
compared to a bored tunnel, therefore allowing a shallower Monash University
station. The most cost effective method of construction would be the open cut and
alternatively cut and cover, although the method of providing the buried structure
could be reviewed at detailed design stage. However, management of the existing
gravity drainage (surface water and sewage), other services, and also the
groundwater flow, would need to be addressed. This is considered a manageable
issue and would require interceptor and diversion works.
17

Monash University Area
This area is on hill, which dictates a below ground station. With the railway
approaching from Huntingdale below ground, the track profile to achieve clearance
under the Princes Highway means that the station would be up to 18m deep to rail
level. Approaching from Huntingdale on an elevated structure is not preferred for
the reasons noted in the description for North Road in the previous section.
The station construction could be undertaken by cut and cover method in line with
the adjacent railway tunnel construction methodology.
18

Monash University Area to the Monash Freeway
The Wellington Road transport corridor is approximately 40m wide in this area and
currently comprises six through traffic lanes, a median of approximately 7m width, a
narrow verge and service road on the south side, and wide verge on the north side.
The north side verge is a suitable opportunity for encroachment to provide for
temporary or permanent traffic diversions, with the railway located along the central
median.
This road would cross Wellington Road, possibly at grade. The two proposals,
although not coordinated, can work together if the road connection makes an atgrade intersection with Wellington Road at a location beneath an elevated rail
structure. Further work would be required on this during the next design stage.
Option 1: Tracks on elevated structure
Characteristics:
the elevated structure would run along the road central median
the gently undulating ground would allow the railway to follow the
contours without an excessively high structure
the Mulgrave station would be on an elevated structure

Issues:
partly residential nature of the area would act against this option
noise and vibration issues associated with this structure type
urban planning issues of a major elevated structure scale and
19

height in a residential area
Advantages:
likely to be lower cost than the below ground option
viaduct piers would fit within the existing central median therefore
avoiding the need for widening the road
Option 2: Tracks below ground
Characteristics:
the railway would run below ground, most likely below the central
median and two lanes of the existing road
Mulgrave station would be below ground and could be located closer

to the residential catchment than for Option 1
Issues:
requires the Monash University station to be lowered by a further 710m than Option 1
costs for buried rail would be higher than elevated
settlement issues at the surface affecting residential properties
shallow sections of tunnel (cut and cover) would require services

diversions
noise and vibration issues for shallow sections of tunnel

Advantages:
lower urban planning impact than Option 1

Option 3: Tracks at grade with shallow cuttings and embankments
Characteristics:
the railway would run as close to ground level as possible, within a

widened central median
Issues:
effects on existing road intersections
requirement for additional land or retaining walls
would require services diversions

Advantages:
lower cost than alternatives

The preferred option is Option 1: tracks on elevated structure. The relatively smooth
ground profile in this area is suited to allow a matching rail profile. The alignment
would be along the central median, the north side verge is relatively close to
properties, so is not the preferred location for the railway.
20

Option 2: tracks below ground, is an alternative. This would be at additional capital
cost but with reduced impact on the urban environment. The same design options
for tracks below ground are available as described for the North Road section
above.
21

Monash Freeway to east of Waverley Park Station
The rail profile across the Monash Freeway is a continuation of the rail profile to the
west, ie between Monash University and the Monash Freeway. The above ground
railway shown for the section to the west allows the railway to be established on a
structure at the same elevation as Wellington Road, as it crosses the Monash
Freeway. It would be located between the two Wellington Road bridge structures.
Should the below ground option be chosen for the area to the west (as described in
the text above as an alternative option), then the Monash Freeway crossing would
also be below ground, with the two rail profile options joining between the Monash
Freeway and Waverley station.
Waverley station would be below ground due to the steep ground profile
immediately to the east of the station location. This ground profile is steeper than
the maximum gradient that is achievable for new railway lines.
22

Jacksons Road
The Wellington Road transport corridor is approximately 60m wide in this area and
currently comprises six through traffic lanes, a median of approximately 9m width, a
narrow verge and service road on the south side, and wide verge on the north side.
The north side verge would be suitable for the railway or alternatively for temporary
or permanent traffic diversions. There are significant utility services in this verge.
This is an important intersection for traffic turning right from Jacksons Road into
Wellington Road and vice versa and, as noted in the plan extract above, would
need to be closed to right turning traffic if an at-grade railway was located along the
central median. There are two options for the alignment in this area:
Option 1: tunnel portal and short length of at-grade track in the north side verge
Characteristics:
tracks would cross below the east bound carriageways, with a tunnel
portal at chainage 26400m, and a short section of at-grade track
leading to elevated structure at chainage 26600m. In order to
maintain the Jacksons/Wellington road intersection, the railway
would be located on the north side verge
Issues:
the largely residential nature of the area may act against this option
because the at-grade section of track and also the elevated
structure to the east would be located closer to residences on the
north side
utility diversions may be significant

Advantages:
would limit the depth of Waverley Station compared to Option 2
likely to be lower cost that the below ground option

An alternative to Option 1 would be to use the central reserve instead of the north
side verge, but this would necessitate closure of right turns at this road junction.
Stakeholder feedback has indicated that this is not considered acceptable due to
the traffic disruption associated with this alternative.
23

Option 2: tracks below ground
Characteristics:
in order to maintain a rail alignment along the centre of Wellington

Road and to protect the Jacksons Road intersection, the railway
could be buried
It would require a below ground crossing of the Monash Freeway and

therefore is linked to the decisions made for the railway profile from
the Springvale Road crossing
Could tie-in to the rail profile on elevated structure to the east at

approximate chainage 27000m
Issues:
Would involve below ground track beyond the immediate area, at

least from Springvale Road to Jacksons Road and beyond - therefore
capital costs for buried rail would be higher
would lower Waverley station compared to Option 1, from 15m to

29m below ground to rail level
would close the Gamett Road junction with Wellington Road unless
the tunnel was sufficiently deep, which would lower Waverley station
by a further 8m approximately
Advantages:
Much lower urban planning impact of the railway line

Option 3: elevated structure over Jacksons Road
Characteristics:
the elevated structure to the east would be extended further west,

over the Jacksons Road junction, towards Waverley station,
therefore providing clearance above the Jacksons Road junction with
Wellington Road
Issues:
would require a significantly higher elevated structure to the east of

Jacksons Road (adjacent to residential properties) than Option 1
Advantages:
would not affect the road intersection

The preferred option is Option 1: tunnel portal and short length of at-grade track in
the north side verge. This has the advantage of balancing the depth of rail to the
west at Waverley station and the height of elevated structure to the east. Services
diversions associated with the rail alignment along the north side verge may be a
considerable cost. The alternative of tracks below ground would lower Waverley
Park station. An elevated structure over the junction would create a structure of
approximately 17m (ground to rail level) further east as the ground falls away.
24
Rowville Approach
From approximately chainage 27000m, there are a number of options for the approach to
Rowville and for the station location at Rowville. The following sections describe the
three main alignment options, which are compared by the sketch in Figure 1 (page 11):
(i)
Alignment A/A* (Golf Course North)
(ii)
Alignment B/B* (Golf Course South)
(iii)
Alignment C (Wellington Road)
Option (i): Golf Course North Option

This option uses an elevated structure across the whole of the flood plain, east and
west of Eastlink, to address flood management concerns, and avoids the heritage
homestead building to the west of Stud Road. The approach to Rowville would be
under Stud Road to a deep station at Stud Park shopping centre.
Characteristics:
elevated structure across the flood plain
crosses beneath the power transmission lines
crosses over Eastlink
located close to a heritage listed building
25
crosses beneath Stud Road

terminates at a deep station beneath the Stud Road shopping
area
Issues:
agreements with third parties needed (power transmission

company Melbourne Water, Parks Victoria and private
landowners)
requires residential property acquisition close to Stud Park
requires substantial amendments to current plans for Caribbean
Business Park
the station at Stud Park would be approximately 15m deep to
platforms
environmental concerns associated with the wetlands and creek
habitats, and loss of open space
Advantages:
straightforward rail profile with small number of constraints
sidings would be located close to the station

An alternative to the buried structure approach to Stud Park would be to use an
elevated structure over Stud Road. This would be up to 15m in height and would
require acquisition of properties on the alignment and would significantly affect
adjacent properties. The advantage of this option is that the Stud Park station would
be within 4-5m of ground level rather than 15m deep.
26
Option (ii): Golf Course South Option

This option, shown in Figure 1 (page 11), has not been taken forward and detailed alignment
drawings have not been progressed.
This option is based on an elevated structure from chainage 27000 (where it leaves
Wellington Road) to a point just east of Eastlink. From then it drops into a buried
structure until the termination point at Stud Park station.
A significant number of properties would be affected by tunnelling in the vicinity of the
Wellington road and Stud Road intersection.
The constraint of the 500kV power lines as they currently exist would require the
power lines to be raised. With the power lines raised, the elevated structure would
continue further east over the Rowville Main Drain (due to gradient constraints the
railway would probably not be able to dip underneath the drain) and into a tunnel
portal in the vicinity of the housing near the Wellington Road/Stud Road intersection.
This option has not been taken forward due to the effect on the residential properties
and the need to raise the power lines.
Characteristics:
elevated structure across the flood plain
crosses over Eastlink
crosses under power transmission lines
buried structure east of Eastlink
terminates at a deep station beneath the Stud Road shopping

area
Issues:
considerable property acquisitions may be necessary along the

route
flood levels make the rail profile difficult and would require the
power transmission cables to be raised
flood risk to the tunnel (depending on chosen location of the tunnel

portal)
agreements with third parties needed

Advantages:
the station at Stud Park would be less deep than for the Golf
Course North option
27
Option (iii): Wellington Road Option

An extract of the alignment drawing is below, from west (top) to east (bottom) and showing
alternative locations for Rowville station:
This option follows Wellington and Stud roads. Moving eastwards, the rail crosses from
the north side verge, to the centre median of Wellington Road. It continues on elevated
structure over the Wellington Road intersection with Eastlink, with an option to divert
south past the intersection to limit structure height, and from then runs in a buried
structure along Wellington Road and along Stud Road. Stud Road has an 8m median
with an 18m reserve on the east side.
There is also an option of crossing to the south verge and terminating at the corner of
Wellington Road and Stud Road at ground level.
Characteristics:
elevated structure over the Wellington Road/Eastlink intersection
tunnel portal located approximately mid way between Eastlink and Stud
Road, tunnel from there to Stud Park shopping centre
either runs along the Wellington Road median or south of Wellington

Road
Issues:
the alignment across Eastlink creates undulating rail profile
would affect right turns along Wellington Road
existing median is narrow where the track would transition from above to
below ground would require substantial lane adjustments
The alignment needs to dip under the Rowville Main Drain at chainage
28
29700m
May require acquisition of the Stamford Inn property

Advantages:
fewest property acquisitions required
the station at Stud Park would be less deep than for the Golf Course
North option
An alternative station location near the intersection of Wellington Road and Stud Road
is possible based on an engineering assessment.
Approach to Rowville options:

Both Option (i): Golf Course North Option, and Option (iii): Wellington Road Option, are feasible.
Option (ii): Golf Course South Option, is not preferred due to the issues noted above.
29
7.
7.1
Civil Structures Required

Introduction
The permissible maximum gradient of the track and the undulating ground levels would
require various structural forms along the route. A further controlling requirement is that the
route is to be grade separated at all intersections with track passing either under or over
road infrastructure. This section describes the form of civil engineering construction along
the track alignment.
The following is a step through the alignment to outline the basic structural needs. The
structural types are discussed in detail in further sections of the report. The basic types are:
Open cut
Cut and Cover
Viaduct
Sprayed Concrete Lined (SCL) Tunnel (Sequential Excavation Method)
Bored Tunnel by Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM)
The alignment under discussion is shown on the drawings listed in Appendix H and adopts
A* (see Figure 1) for the routing into Rowville. Subsequent sections of this report discuss
the above structural types in more depth.
Huntingdale
The new underground platforms for Huntingdale station would be constructed in cut and
cover in the area presently occupied by car parking and commercial property to the east of
the existing Huntingdale station, or alternatively in a piggyback formation beneath the
existing platforms.
The down line would depart from the mainline in a decline structure passing into cut and
cover and thence into the station box.
The up line would emerge from the station box in SCL tunnel in order to pass under the main
lines and then pass into open cut to ascend to join the main up line.
This approach would allow the least disruption to the mainline as only the tie-ins would
require rail occupation.
If the platforms can be located to the east of the existing station, the effect on the existing
station would be small. It may be decided to refurbish the station to blend in with the new
section however it is unlikely that this would disrupt the mainline any more than a
conventional station refurbishment.
At the south end of the station the alignment would be required to negotiate the foundations
of the North Road overbridge, North Road itself, Huntingdale Road and the Oakleigh Army
30
Barracks. While cut and cover involving building demolition is an option, an SCL tunnel
serviced from the station box would avoid these interfaces and depending on building
foundation depth allow the barracks to remain.
The SCL tunnel would join cut and cover construction under the median of North Road at
chainage 19100 having passed under the intersection leaving that intersection intact. The
length of SCL tunnel from the Huntingdale Station box would be 750m.
North Road
The wide median in North Road allows structural form to be cut and cover. Safe
maintenance of the cycle path presently routed long the median would be required. This
might be achieved by temporarily combining with the side footways.
There are five crossing points through the median to service local roads. Although these
could possibly be reduced in number those remaining would dictate the level of the railway.
The options are for the railway to be in cut and cover thus enabling the median to be
restored as currently laid out or to have deep open cut with overbridges at the median
crossing points. Open cut may have advantages in reducing the ventilation requirements but
has the disadvantages of removing the median amenity and requiring safety measures in the
form of crash barriers and high mesh fencing to avoid errant vehicles or their loads from
reaching the railway. Right turns would be affected by an open cut structure and therefore
cut and cover may need to be used at certain locations
Princes Highway Area
The intersection of Princes Highway with North Road (Wellington Road to the east) is a
major and complex junction. It can be negotiated either in staged cut and cover construction
or by SCL tunnel.
The location of Monash Station may have a bearing on the selection of construction type. If
Monash station is located within the car parking zone of the university precinct then the
alignment would have to pass from the median to the north side of Wellington Road and
would therefore impact the east bound carriageway of Wellington Road. This station
location would therefore favour the use of SCL tunnel not only to negotiate the Princes
Highway junction but also cross the carriageway all without interruption to traffic. SCL tunnel
might also better facilitate the separation of the tracks to allow an island platform at Monash.
Monash Station
Monash station as shown on the alignment plans would be constructed by cut and cover
either under Wellington Road or biased towards the university precinct. Acceptable
horizontal alignment and the location of buildings fronting Wellington Road at either end of
the university parking area would dictate the station location.
31
During construction the lost parking could be re-provided using temporary or permanent
multistorey car parks.
Monash Station to Blackburn Road
From the east end of Monash Station the structural form would change from cut and cover or
SCL tunnel if the latter is thought preferable to return to the Wellington Road median and
close up the distance between the tracks if island platform configuration is used at Monash.
The alignment would then emerge in a portal structure and after a short length at grade onto
viaduct structure to pass over Blackburn Road.
Blackburn Road to Monash Freeway
The alignment would continue on twin track viaduct. An elevated Mulgrave Station would be
constructed adjacent to Springvale Road. On the way to chainage 24850 the structure
would lower to at grade either side of the Monash Freeway and pass over the freeway in the
space provided between the existing Wellington Road overbridges. Construction would be
similar viaduct throughout with no change in concept for crossing the freeway.
Monash Freeway to Jacksons Road
Here the scenario is similar to Monash station in that the Waverley Park Station would be
constructed in cut and cover either under Wellington Road or biased to one side of it. Cut
and cover or SCL tunnel would be used either side of the station before emerging into open
cut. The construction of the station would involve fewer traffic plans and disruption to traffic
if its foot print was removed from beneath the intersection of Wellington Road and Jells
Road. Again SCL tunnel would have benefit in diverging the tracks if island platforms were
used without disturbing additional widths of road corridor. Emerging from the sloping
ground, the viaduct would need to be located in the north side verge, as described in section
6, to allow right turning vehicles at the Jacksons Road intersection. Any portal structure in
the central median would need to take due regard of the lower elevation of the Wellington
Road eastbound carriageway.
Jacksons Road to East Side of Flood Plain
Elevated structure would continue throughout this section to negotiate EastLink descending
to at grade, embankment or elevated structure to ensure levels are sufficiently above the
100 year return flood level. At chainage 28600 overhead power lines cross the alignment
causing a pinch point between the clearance to the powerlines and the required clearance to
the traffic envelope on EastLink. The standard form of viaduct is unlikely to be suitable and
a bridge of the through truss type might be required.
Rowville
The tracks would be below ground under Stud Road, this would require the demolition of
property (private dwellings) above the alignment. The section under Stud Road could be
carried out in cut and cover or SCL tunnel may be considered to avoid disruption to Stud
32
Road and the entrance to the shopping area. To descend earlier to maintain the properties
would force the level of Rowville station to be overly deep with capital and operational cost
penalties and the inconvenience to users of an unnecessarily deep station.
Bored Tunnel Alternative
All the sections noted above as cut and cover or SCL tunnel could be replaced with TBM
bored tunnel.
Details of this method are explained in Section 7.8. It is unlikely that there would be any
advantage in using TBM bored tunnel for the short section into Rowville station.
Having purchased the TBM for the project the alignment can be considered for additional
lengths of tunnel especially if the sections of viaduct are considered to have to high
environmental cost, such as the elevated section between Blackburn and Springvale
Roads. Four of the five stations are already underground, this option would mean all five
are. A tentative alignment is indicated by the red line on drawings SB19323-D-TC-002, 003,
004 and 005. The stations would all be of cut and cover construction. The revised
alignment has used the 2% maximum vertical gradient of the original.
To assist this alternative alignment the Mulgrave Station adjacent Springvale Road would be
located east of Springvale Road. Monash station would need to move as far west as
possible towards Princes Highway to reduce its depth. Cut and cover or SCL would remain
at Rowville due its short length and separation.
33
7.2
Tunnel cross section requirements
Train Structural envelope, cant space

The train structure gauge envelope is defined by the VRIOGS publication VRIOGS 00012005 Structural Gauge Envelopes Minimum clearances for Infrastructure adjacent to the
Railway
It appears that the likely tunnel sections would be on relatively straight track but it should be
noted that any horizontal curvature would cause end and centre throws of the rolling stock
which would have to be taken into account when developing the structural envelope from the
kinematic. Cant of the track and whether the point of rotation is off the tunnel centreline
would also have an influence on the tunnel cross section.
It is important that there is sufficient air space around the train for efficient ventilation. In a
circular tunnel this is usually easily achieved.
The type of Overhead Line Equipment (OHLE) would dictate the overall height of the
structural envelope. There are various types which would need to be assessed together with
a decision whether to cater for an allowance for changing to high voltage (see section n9 for
further details).
Emergency Walkway
The minimum width of walkway would depend on the standard to be adopted. The US
standard NFPA 130 requires a shaped space of minimum width 610mm at walking surface
and at 2035mm height and 760mm at 1420 above the walking height. NFPA and Australian
DDA regulations allow assistance in emergencies i.e. lifting off the train of wheel chair bound
people. The level of the walkway should be such that it can be accessed from both the train
and track level with the priority on ease of access from the train.
Service routing
Services that would take up space within the tunnel cross section include.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Invert drainage
Pumping main from low point sumps
Fire main and associated valves
High Voltage cable ducting
Long line cabling for low voltage, signalling equipment and communications
equipment
6) OHLE
Track slab and derailment containment

The difficulty of access to restore the train to the track and the destruction of railway
equipment if the train departs significantly from its structural envelope has lead to the usual
34
requirement of incorporating derailment containment in the form of a raised concrete plinth

between the rails.
While most of the alignment is under existing highways the issue of noise and vibration may
not require significant attention. However with recent developments of anti vibration devices,
such as Pandrol Vipa pads, reducing vibration effects can be achieved in minimal space.
There may be areas such as where the alignment passes close to hospitals, laboratories,
teaching establishments or even residential areas where noise and vibration reduction may
be considered necessary. It should be noted that the Melbourne Loop has a more bulky
1980s version of an anti-vibration design.
35
7.3
Cut-and-cover tunnel
The potential length of twin track cut and cover construction is approximately 3.7km.
Cut and cover construction has the benefit of using standard piling equipment that is readily
available as similar techniques are used throughout Melbourne in basement construction.
The design can easily be adapted to cope with variations in ground conditions above and
below the watertable.
A typical cross section is shown in Figure 2. Piles are formed for ground support and in
addition a central pile to assist roof support. The central pile can also allow the roof to be
constructed in two halves to minimise space take up during construction and hence the
impact on traffic.
Top down construction is envisaged whereby subsequent to piling the ground is excavated
to soffit level, the roof constructed and the surface features reinstated. By keeping the level
of the top of roof 1.5m below ground level there should be sufficient space for utilities to pass
over. Special provision may be necessary for water utilities depending on invert levels.
Provision can also be built into the roof to take the root ball of trees to be reinstated for
reasons of amenity provided there is sufficient depth.
The walls can take the form of secant piles, contiguous piles or King post piles with arched
shotcrete lagging depending on the ground support and resistance to water ingress.
The piling is taken below the base slab to ensure stability from lateral loading prior to
completion of the base slab and also to provide resistance to hydraulic uplift in areas of high
water table.
The method has the advantage that it can allow construction to start on as many fronts as
necessary provided sufficient areas are available for handling the excavated material.
Alternatively long lengths of cut and cover can be constructed and excavation carried out
from a single point by tunnelling methods under the protection of the roof and piled walls.
This method is sometimes referred to as Door Frame tunnelling.
A disadvantage of cut and cover is that long lengths of tunnel can form a barrier to natural
groundwater flow especially if deep secant piling is used through permeably strata. This can
cause settlement on the water depleted side and ground swelling on the side of water build
up.
Although it is anticipated that most of the construction of cut and cover would be in the
roadway median it is likely to require adjacent lanes and disrupt road intersections. It will be
important to include the cost of traffic management into cost estimates.
36
Figure 2: Cut and Cover Tunnel
37
7.4
Open Cut
As the railway alignment passes from tunnel to at grade or viaduct there would be sections
of open cut. The estimated length of open cut gives a total of approximately 1.5km.
Generally these would take the form of similar walls to the cut and cover braced by a base
slab.
Provision for a detraining and maintenance walkway on the outside of each track has been
made.
If ground conditions allow support of the excavation using soil nailing techniques may be a
possible solution. Near vertical and perhaps even vertical walls may be achievable with this
technique, as shown schematically in Figure 4.
Soil nailing is an economical technique for stabilizing slopes and for constructing retaining
walls from the top down. This ground reinforcement process uses steel tendons which are
drilled and grouted into the soil to create a composite mass similar to a gravity wall with the
tendons securing the potential slip zones to the stable areas beyond. A shotcrete facing is
usually applied, though options such as precast panels incorporating architectural features
can be used for the permanent wall facings. Figure 3 shows an example of a deep
excavation supported by soil nailing, and Figure 5 shows the main features of a soil nail.
Figure 3: Example of Soil Nailing
38
Figure 4: Open Cut
39
Figure 5: Typical Soil Nail (From Ischebeck Titan Brochure)
Open cut railway next to road traffic would require special protection to prevent errant
vehicles or their loads falling onto the railway. This is likely to require a substantial concrete
safety barrier surmounted by a steel mesh security fence. For piled construction the safety
barrier can be formed monolithic with the pile capping beam. For soil nailed walls the
vehicle barrier has no pile to found on and hence it would need to be founded on competent
ground at the excavation edge and tied back by ground anchors. An alternative to anchoring
would be to attach the barrier to an RC slab under the traffic lane but this has the
disadvantage of extending the width of construction.
The length of tunnelled railway would have repercussions for ventilation design and further
design phases may reveal lengths of open cut to be an advantage over fully enclosed cut
and cover. Where this occurs it is envisaged that the structure would be very similar to cut
and cover with the roof replaced by a structural system of struts and walings to support the
tops of the piles.
The negative side of such lengths of open cut is the loss of amenity of the road median and
the visual intrusion of the traffic barriers and security fencing.
40
7.5
Elevated Sections (Viaduct)
This section describes and discusses the possible options for the 2 elevated sections of the Rowville Rail Link. Viaduct construction is
required for an approximate total of 5.8km.
Figure 6: Typical Viaduct
41
7.5.1 Typical Design Elements

The typical design for an elevated railway involves a viaduct supported on piers. The viaduct
would span over intersections and provide a fully grade separated route for the railway. It is
a significant feature within the landscape and therefore careful architectural and urban
design is required to positively mitigate the visual intrusion.
Superstructure Construction
Recent Australian construction experience is that similar mainly highway viaducts are
concrete box girders typically constructed from precast sections. In-situ concrete
construction is not considered feasible due to the constrained nature of the alignment and
the large amount of falsework required to support the weight of the wet concrete.
Steel superstructures are not recommended due to the capital cost of steel, the potential for
increase noise and the high level of ongoing maintenance required. Additionally authorities
are becoming less accepting of steel superstructures except in special circumstances due to
the limited life of protective coatings. A steel superstructure would require repainting 2 to 3
times during its design life.
There are three possible superstructure forms appropriate for the viaduct with the design of
the section driven by the chosen construction method. These are described as follows.
1 - Segmental Box Girder Construction
A typical precast unit is 2.5 to 3m long. These are manufactured in a local site under
controlled conditions so as to achieve a high quality finish and fit. The sections are then
transported to site either by road or along the finished viaduct. The units are then glued into
position and pre stressing cables are then used to stress the sections together to improve
structural performance. The sections may vary in depth so as to achieve longer spans.
Significant spans can be achieved with greater depths through the use of balanced
cantilever construction. See Figure 7 and Figure 8.
42
Figure 7: Typical Precast box girder segment
The precast segments would be prestressed together using high-tensile prestressing

tendons. The tendons can either be internal or external. Internal tendons are inserted
through ducts cast into the concrete and may be bonded (by grouting the ducts). This
method is structurally more efficient and therefore would offer savings in material quantities.
External prestressing is when the tendons are located outside of the concrete cross section,
and within the hollow interior of the deck. This method provides easier access for installation
and inspection. Normal practice would be to allow the designers to make the decision
depending on the performance requirements, which may lead to a combination of both
methods being adopted. A significant design parameter would be the preferred choice and
availability of contractors plant.
43
Figure 8: Segmental construction
Segmental Precast units may also be used in balanced cantilever bridge construction
thereby achieving spans greater than 60m and so is suitable for use when crossing an
intersection requiring good visibility at a junction, or over the EastLink (High Voltage lines
permitting).
2 - Full Span Precast Box Girders

For spans up to 40m an entire span may be prefabricated off site before being transported
into position. This methodology has the advantage of minimizing the required work at height
and is particularly suitable for construction through an urban area as the disruption due to
the construction of the deck is minimized. Traffic along Wellington road could be maintained
and the only requirement would be for a safety zone.
It is also possible to get very fast rates of construction, providing a huge benefit to the
construction program. This method does require significant investment in a heavy duty
launching gantry as shown in Figure 9.
44
Figure 9: Full span erection on the Taiwan High speed rail
3 - Conventional girder deck bridge using super-tee girders

1800 deep super-tees can achieve spans for up to 30 metres for railway loadings. A likely
deck arrangement would feature 4 super-tee girders per span supporting an in-situ concrete
deck. No special construction plant is required with the girders erected using a conventional
crane. Super-tees are the most common form of bridge superstructure in Australia and have
been used on a large number of bridge projects.
The economies of scale associated with a project of this size dictate that a box girder
structure, which is substantially more visually appealing superstructure, is likely to be similar
in price to a super-tee superstructure. The use of super-tee girders would severely limit the
scope for good seamless architecture. Additionally the span lengths would be limited to
approximately 30 metres, requiring additional piers compared to a box girder. Super-tees
are therefore not recommended for the main deck construction for this project.
Careful consideration of the articulation of the viaduct is required, in particular the location of
the bridge expansion joints in relation to the rail expansion joints (if any). Determination of
the articulation is somewhat dependent on the method of construction as each construction
method lends itself to certain methods of articulation.
Sub-structure construction
The purpose of the sub-structure is to support the viaduct deck. Piers are required to be
robust against impact from errant vehicles yet slender to improve the aesthetics and reduce
the cost. It is more effective to use single columns rather than two or more columns requiring
a head stock structure. This form of construction naturally provides a good architectural
45
opportunity. For each superstructure module (a module comprises a number of spans

between expansion joints), torsional effects (particularly due to horizontal curvature), would
need one twin bearing at each movement joint. The piers can be constructed either in-situ
using formwork or can be constructed from precast segments stressed together. The form
would be dependent on the construction contractors preference.
The foundations for the piers are typically piled using bored or CFA piles. The use of large
diameter mono-piles for the foundations (subject to ground sub grade stiffness being
adequate against lateral loading) would significantly increase the construction speed by
reducing the number of piling operations and removing the need for a separately constructed
pile cap. However this would require the use of specialized plant that may need to be
sourced from overseas. See Figure 10.
Figure 10: Elegant piers founded on monopiles on the Palm Jumeirah monorail
46
7.5.2 Elevated Station Design

The positioning of the station in relation to the local environment is a significant opportunity
for high quality urban design. It is to be expected that the majority of passengers would seek
to arrive at the station by foot and therefore the local environment should reflect the need for
pedestrians to access the station from both sides of Wellington Road. The station precinct
should also encourage onward travel by other sustainable means such as cycling.
A key operational aspect of the station that needs to be addressed in the structural design is
the location of the ticket barrier and concourse. To minimize operational costs a single
concourse is preferred, as well as providing increased security and safety.
There are two basic options for the layout of the station design:
Twin Platform design
A twin platform design would allow the station to be constructed independently from the main
viaduct construction. This would lead to efficiency in the construction as standardized
precast deck units could be used continuously through the station.
A twin platform design requires a separate route for platform interchange. This may either be
done at ground level, unlikely due to the presence of the road or via a dedicated structure
either over or under the tracks.
The overbridge structure would require additional lifts and stairs to allow for access over the
track as well as increasing the visual impact of the station. An alternative is for the
passenger interchange to occur beneath the tracks - this space could also act as the main
station concourse. The passenger interchange structure could also act as an open access
grade separated crossing for pedestrians. See Figure 11.
Figure 11: Bangkok Skytrain station showing elevated pedestrian access routes under the tracks
47
Island Platform Design

An island platform design is preferred from an operations and station design aspect. This allows for a
single access point of entry to the platform and very easy cross platform interchange. Although the
station footprint is reduced there is a need to split the tracks and therefore continuous construction of
the deck is not possible. This would increase the cost of the viaducts as a non-standard deck section
would be required. See Figure 12.
Figure 12: An island platform on the Singapore Mass transit system
48
7.5.3 Approach Ramps and Tunnel Portals

There is a significant interface with the ground at each end of the viaduct and particularly
where the route goes into a cut and cover section where a tunnel portal structure would be
required. Each ramp offers a substantial challenge for urban and technical engineering
design. The normal maximum operating gradient of 2% means that an embankment of over
100m in length would be required before achieving sufficient headroom for pedestrians. The
embankment footprint is dictated by the type of material available and the form of
construction. The embankments could be formed through recycling the spoil removed from
the tunnels. Depending on structural properties of the spoil, the spoil may need to be treated
or reinforced to reduce the footprint to an acceptable amount as against the footprint formed
by its natural slope angle. The facing of the embankment would be a very important design
feature; naturally graded embankments are often turfed though careful selection of species
would be required to prevent desiccation. Alternative facings may be combined with
geotechnical reinforcement to provide a combined sustainable and structural solution. Within
an urban context a reinforced soil wall or steep embankment may be preferable, particularly
where there are space constraints.
7.5.4 Trackform
The key issue that would need to be resolved over the full route is the choice of track form.
Slab track is typically the preferred option due to its reduced whole life costs though careful
design of resilient elements are required to ensure that the track form meets the required
noise and vibration criteria. Ballasted track is the traditional form of permanent way and is
cheaper initially but requires additional maintenance throughout its life to maintain
performance. If there is surrounding structure to stabilize the track, as is the case on viaduct
or in tunnel it is generally used to locate slab track and benefit from its longevity.
The design should eliminate or reduce the number of rail movement joints as these are high
maintenance. A rail movement joint would be needed for structure expansion lengths of
over 100m.
7.5.5 Design issues

The key benefits of an elevated viaduct are as follows:
An elevated viaduct is typically 30% of the cost of a tunnel.

Elevating the railway does not sever adjacent communities
Speed and ease of construction
Safer construction
Minimal impact on existing utilities (sewer, water, fibre optic)
Good design would lead to the railway becoming a positive feature to the urban
landscape
There is no disruption to the local ground water environment so no risk of settlement
impacts of adjacent buildings founded on soft ground due to tunnelling or changes in the
water regime
49
No requirements for additional specialised underground safety or communication

systems as the existing systems can be used
The design would have to address the following key issues in order to achieve the benefits
Particular design effort is required to avoid detrimental visual impact
There is a potential for increased noise impacts
Construction activities may be extensive
Maintenance activities need to be considered in the design
Emergency responses requires careful planning
Noise and Vibration

These design issues are discussed in more detail below.
Adjacent communities
The very nature of the elevated route enables existing links across the Wellington Road to
be maintained in most cases. At each end of the viaduct, there would be an embankment
and a cutting before the route continues underground. These features would act as a barrier
and would need careful consideration in the design.
The substructures would need careful positioning to fit within the urban environment. There
is potential for creating an unwelcoming, insecure and constrained area directly underneath
the viaduct and therefore these areas need high quality urban design in mitigation.
Visual intrusion
The design needs to account for the high level visual intrusion of the viaduct. There is
significant opportunity for good architecture and urban design to mitigate against the visual
intrusion and provide positive elements particularly around stations. Some key principles can
be adopted to provide a consistent visual identity along the route and may include; support
provided by single piers equally spaced and a continuous sections used throughout.
Traffic interface
As the alignment of the elevated sections follows the median of Wellington road for the most
part the only interface with traffic would be at junctions. Intersections should be
accommodated within a single span though it may be necessary to increase the span locally
or amend the intersection design to incorporate a pier. In such cases the piers should be
positively protected for impact from errant vehicles. It is not expected that the controlling load
case would be vehicle impact protection though local streetscape measures may be required
to promote safety such as kerbs or protective barriers
The standard 5.4m headroom would be required across junctions though it is good design if
this headroom is maintained along the entire length, and so not constrain any future
intersections.
Noise and Vibration
The passage of trains over the new railway viaduct would generate noise and vibration.
Audible noise would occur at frequencies higher than those related to vibration, which are
50
mostly inaudible. The magnitude of both noise and vibration would be predicted during the
design phase and compared to acceptable performance limits. A key consideration is that
the alignment is in an already noisy urban environment and therefore a key design task is to
establish the present ambient noise levels.
The measures which are available to mitigate excessive noise and vibration, are different.
The types of special attenuation features would most-likely vary depending on the location; it
is possible that some of the features discussed below would not be required generally, or
at all.
Mitigation of Noise
The following measures each contribute towards the reduction of noise emissions from a
railway viaduct. These measures focus on reducing high-frequency (audible) vibrations:
Sound Emitted as a Result of Wheel-to-Rail Contact
Ensure the condition of the rolling stock (particularly the roundness of the wheels), and
the condition of the track rail, and track bed, are maintained to a high quality.
Use continuously-welded rail track.
Use solid (and heavy) concrete noise barriers. These barriers may be incorporated into
the deck cross section, and are commonly used around the world for elevated railway
viaducts, for the purposes of minimising rail noise, and also achieving an aestheticallypleasing structure. Local up stands, positioned close to the rail provide the best noise
mitigation as well as providing containment against derailment. They are not visually
obtrusive as do not rise above car floor height.
Structure borne noise

Use spans of heavy material; use concrete spans instead of steel spans.
Ensure non-structural viaduct components (e.g. services pipes, access walkways, sight
screens, etc), are resistant to loosening. Maximise the opportunities to dampen
vibration within these components.
The relative merits of direct-fixation of rail track, versus the use of ballasted track bed, to
limit noise and vibration would require an investigation to adopt the most suitable
trackform for the rolling stock.
Resilient track fixings can be specified; these contain compressible components which
reduce the vertical stiffness of the connection. These devices are useful in reducing
structure-borne vibration/noise. There are a number of recognised systems incorporating
resilient fixings that have been used on similar projects. It is important for maintenance
that the same fixings are used for both the tunnel and bridge sections to maximise
maintenance efficiencies
If ballast track is chosen then additional resilient elements such as a thick and continuous
layer of elastomeric ballast mat underneath the ballast would be provided.
If rail track is fixed directly to a concrete slab, this slab can be made to float above the
bridge structure in order to limit the generation of structure-borne noise and vibration. The
51
floating slab is supported either by a thick and continuous elastomeric mat, or via steel
helical springs (e.g. GERB GSI-system).
Mitigation of Vibration
The following measures can each be expected to reduce vibration emissions from an
elevated railway viaduct. These measures focus on reducing low-frequency (mostly
inaudible) vibrations:
Use spans of heavy material; use concrete spans instead of steel. This measure lowers
the frequencies at which the bridge vibrates.
Use longer bridge spans. This measure lowers the frequencies at which the bridge
vibrates.
The relative merits of direct-fixation of rail track, versus the use of ballasted track bed, to
limit noise and vibration would require an investigation to adopt the most suitable
trackform for the rolling stock.
The choice of bearings for the viaduct is critical in reducing the transmission of vibration
to the sub-structure. Elastomeric bearings tend to provide a natural damping effect,
however are larger and may require a larger crosshead whereas pot bearings are
usually better able to resist the large vertical and horizontal loadings associated with rail
bridges and are more compact. However the bearing maintenance regime and the
whole life costs associated with the bearings is important.
As an alternative to the use of elastomeric, or pot bearings, special high-capacity
bearings with steel helical-springs could be used. It is most probable that these would
be required only adjacent to buildings with extra-stringent requirements for mitigation
and even then, only if vibrations are expected to be otherwise excessive.
The transmission of viaduct vibrations to adjacent structures is likely to be increased if
there is some manner of direct, and rigid, connection between the foundations of each.
For example it is sometimes possible that the vibrations generated by a structure which
is piled to bedrock can be communicated to an adjacent structure which is supported
similarly. The selection of appropriate foundation type for the rail viaduct should
consider whether the foundation solution is likely to communicate unacceptable
vibrations to adjacent structures this may require the bridge viaduct design team to
consult building owners to understand the nature of foundation support for adjacent
buildings.
If the viaduct piers were founded, at select locations, on pad footings, it is likely that this
foundation type would reduce the transmission of viaduct vibrations.
Performance Limits
The prediction of vibration effects is a complex engineering challenge and would require
specialist skills in the analysis and modeling of bridge dynamics. There are a large number
of parameters which contribute towards noise and vibration which would need to be
accurately identified and modeled. Analysis would be useful to understand the relative
differences between alternative details as well as establishing appropriate performance
limits.
52
The bridge viaduct and rail components should be designed to satisfy legislated noise and
vibration limits. In addition, the owners of building assets, which are located adjacent to the
railway viaduct, should be consulted to determine whether any additional performance
requirements exist; these should be included in the design requirements. An asset owner
may claim a special set of performance requirements to limit noise or vibration and therefore
a baseline study should be undertaken to determine the existing levels of noise and vibration
caused by existing infrastructure, including roads. It would not be reasonable for the new
railway viaduct to be designed to a set of conditions more stringent than those identified by
the baseline study.
The main source of noise would be from the wheel rail interface. A well designed and
maintained track would help minimize the potential for wheel noise and particularly flange
squeal. The level of noise for low speed suburban trains is not expected to be significant
when compared to the pre-existing road traffic noise, particularly in peak hours, however the
alignment should avoid tight radius curves as this increases the risk of flange squeal
developing as the track and rolling stock wears.
Access for Maintenance
The viaduct would have to incorporate maintenance walkways on either side of the tracks to
allow safe access to the permanent way during operation. The maintenance walkways can
form part of the main structural deck section and perform a dual role by also acting as noise
walls. As the track is elevated it is to be expected that maintenance plant would need to be
track mounted. Some tasks such as bearing inspections and catenary maintenance may be
undertaken from ground level using mobile elevated working platforms if required.
The internal dimensions of the box girder should allow for internal inspection, a minimum 1m
internal depth is recommended.
Emergency Access and Evacuation
In the event of an emergency that requires passengers to exit the train on an elevated
section, procedures would be required to marshal the passengers safely to ground level.
Typically this would involve stopping the trains and walking along the track to the nearest
station or ground access point. As the elevated sections are less than 4km in length,
unsightly intermediate emergency access staircases need not be required. It is reasonable
to expect disembarked passengers to walk up to 2km to an evacuation point.
7.5.6 Construction Issues

Foundations
A full geotechnical investigation is required with core holes taken at designed pier positions
to confirm geology. The construction of a single monopile greatly reduces the disruption on
site and would lead to significant cost savings over other solutions if geotechnical conditions
permit it.
Services and Utilities
Services would need to need to be identified early and if necessary diverted.
53
Location of casting yard

The location of the site compound and casting yard is critical. A site should be chosen to be
close to the construction site to allow for the greatest efficiency in moving the precast units
from the factory to the site. Full span precast units would be very heavy and therefore
routes to the site may need investigation and possible strengthening of culverts and bridges.
If full span units are to be used it is normal to locate the casting yard directly adjacent to the
structure to minimize the number of lifts and lifting equipment. A casting yard would be
equipped with a purpose built gantry to lift the units on to the viaduct and where a purpose
built tractor would be used to move the units using the partially completed viaduct as the
haul road. Using the viaduct as the main access road for construction would minimize the
disruption for local traffic. See Figure 13.
Figure 13: Full span precast units being moved on the Taiwan High Speed Rail Link
A significant issue for the construction is that viaduct is possible for two separate sections of
the alignment. Detailed construction planning would need to be undertaken to establish the
staging of the construction and plant utilisation.
Working close to live traffic.
The construction method may have significant impacts on the local traffic; this would need
full investigation as part of the construction and traffic planning as part of further work.
Erection of Precast units
There are two main methods by which the pre-cast units may be erected:
Crane Erection
Individual precast segments can be erected via the balanced cantilever constructed method
slowly working out from a pier in a balanced manner. Each individual segment is temporarily
stressed to the previous unit, prior to final prestressing once a full span is erect. The
advantage of this method is that a purpose built gantry is not required with only conventional
54
cranes being required. This has programming advantages in that the work can progress at
several sites concurrently.
Travelling Gantry- Under or Overslung
A purpose build erection truss supported either by temporary or permanent piers on which a
spans worth of precast sections is installed prior to being stressed into position. This system
is tried and tested throughout the world, and has recently been employed in Australia on
projects such as Adelaides South Road Superway, Brisbane's Gateway, Sydney's M7 and
Melbourne's Western Link. This method of construction allows the majority of superstructure
erection to be undertaken at height, with minimal disruption to traffic and other activities on
the ground. Spans range from approximately 40m to 60m. See Figure 14 and Figure 15.
55
Figure 14: Underslung gantry during construction of Sydneys M7 orbital
Figure 15: Overslung travelling gantry constructing in Delhi
56
7.6
Bridges
7.6.1 Princes Highway grade separation

A bridge crossing the Princes Highway would be applicable if viaduct is used for the
alignment along North Road. Its form would be as per the standard viaduct construction to
be adopted.
7.6.2 Monash Freeway grade separation

The existing Wellington Road crosses the Monash Freeway on a 4-span reinforced concrete
bridge. A rail overbridge could use a similar span and column arrangement as the road
bridge with the track at a similar level to the existing road or viaduct construction could
continue through.
7.6.3 East Link grade separation, Alignment A or A*

As noted earlier these alignments require the crossing of EastLink adjacent to the overhead
power lines. If space does not permit the viaduct form of bridge construction through truss
bridge design may be required to limit overall depth.
7.6.4 East Link grade separation, Alignment C

The existing Wellington Road crosses EastLink on a 2-span reinforced concrete bridge. A
rail crossing could use the same span and column arrangement as the road bridge with the
track at a similar level to the existing road (with a change in the road traffic signals and Uturn provision) or, in an elevated position, to allow traffic to use the existing on-off road
ramps on the North side of Wellington Road. Alternatively, as shown on the alignment
drawings, the rail could divert to the north or south.
The rail bridge could be steel beams with a reinforced concrete deck or precast concrete
beam and deck construction.
57
7.7
Sprayed Concrete Lined Tunnel
There are locations along the rail route where it may be desirable to use shallow cover
driven Sprayed Concrete Lined (SCL) tunnelling techniques or to use these methods
because other methods such as cut and cover tunnelling are not feasibly at a particular
location.
Likely locations for shallow cover driven tunnels are as follows:
The mainline railway connection at Huntingdale Station.
Under major road intersections (e.g. Princes Highway).
Under buildings and Stud Road on the approach to Rowville.
In some situations a driven tunnel may be more desirable along some length of the
alignment because of environmental noise factors associated with say the cut and cover
method during the construction phase.
While details at specific locations are not known at this level of study it is possible to predict
that shallow cover driven tunnel methods could be used at any location along route. The
only variables significantly impacting the construction time and cost are the geological profile
at each location and the length of tunnel to be constructed. The range of tunnel techniques
available means that for all practical purposes on any site shallow tunnelling would always
be feasible.
A generic form of shallow cover tunnelling for short tunnels (say under 1 km in length where
a Tunnel Boring Machine or Shield would be considered too expensive or not practical) is
the canopy tube method with shotcrete and steel lattice girder tunnel support over the arch.
The face of the tunnel can be stabilised during construction by excavation staging using
heading and benching, fibre glass, spiling/face nails or shotcrete or any combination of the
these methods. The steel canopy tubes are installed ahead of the tunnel in an array over
the tunnel arch and this process is repeated as the tunnel excavation advances. The steel
tubes being 12m in length with a 3m overlap between successive arrays. The final tunnel
lining can be the initial shotcrete support over the tunnel arch or range up to a steel
reinforced in-situ concrete lining.
Generally as a minimum for rail tunnels it is desirable to prevent drips from the tunnel crown
and to manage potential ground water flows. The selection of tunnel waterproofing today
ranges from a spray-on waterproofing membranes (used over shotcrete lined tunnels) to
sheet membranes (used in tunnels with an in-situ concrete lining). The tunnel does not
necessarily have to be watertight with the tunnel invert perhaps being drained.
The potential geological conditions vary significantly according to the desktop study carried
out to date. The near surface layers consist of silts, sands, clays and some gravels. Near
58
Dandenong Creek the water table is near the surface, elsewhere the watertable is 5m to
10m below the surface.
From the surface the next layer of strata is likely to be the over-consolidated clays, sandy
clays and clayey sands of the Brighton Group.
Under the Brighton Group there will be mostly weathered Siltstone and Sandstone typically
low to medium strength. That is rock in strength ranging from around 3MPa to 20MPa
unconfined compressive strength. This rock formation is highly folded with anti-clines and
synclines which in an open face tunnel excavation would require careful monitoring. In
extreme cases tunnel face support can be provided by fibre glass face spiling/nails and
shotcrete.
With the method of construction discussed and even with shallow ground cover, surface
settlement would be maintained below acceptable limits. This point is particularly relevant
for the tunnel under the existing railway line at Huntingdale station required to make the
connection to the Rowville line. Recent work in Brisbane with a completed shallow tunnel
and also in Sydney for a detailed rail underpass study currently in progress to traverse below
three active railway lines we can be confident that little if any disruption to the railway
network would occur. At Huntingdale Station there may well be some initial track
possessions for construction of the dive structure before tunnelling under the tracks can
either commence or be completed.
Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18 below are of previous successful SCL shallow cover
tunnel projects.
59
Figure 16: Buranda Brisbane, Ground cover under rail tracks 3m
Figure 17: Pipe arch and steel sets (Source Boggo Road Busway Brisbane)
60
Figure 18: Cross section of Boggo Road Busway, Brisbane
61
7.8
TBM Bored tunnel
7.8.1 General Principles

The tunnel is created using a TBM and its back up train. A circular tunnel is created due to
the rotating cutter head. The TBM is driven forward by jacking off the previously installed
linings or gripping the tunnel walls or a combination of both. Double shell TBMs allow the
excavation to occur independently of lining erection and can speed up the drive.
As noted in the geotechnical section of this report the geology of the area is of mixed ground
with Quatenary and Tertiary sands clays and gravels and also lower Devonian siltstone and
sandstone. The siltstone and sandstone are reported to be mainly weathered and of low to
medium strength but higher strengths may be encountered. Groundwater level is noted to
be in the range of 5 to 10m below ground level. A closed face TBM is therefore required
which would pressurise the face to support it during excavation and prevent water inflows.
The two types are:
Earth pressure Balance (EPB) TBM Pressure is applied to the face by the extraction of
excavated material through a screw conveyor. The excavated material can be conditioned
by the addition of additives to create a cohesive material to combat the situation when water
bearing sands and silts are met. The machine is ideal for clays, silts and sands and can also
cut rock but grinding the rock to the particle size for transport through the screw conveyor
can often cause excessive wear on the cutter head. Bands of Iron Stone in the Brighton
Group present a risk in this regard. The TBM can be designed to allow removal of the screw
conveyor so that progress can be made in open mode if ground conditions permit, allowing
removal of larger rock fragments by conventional conveyor. Such changes should be
limited, however due to the effect on the construction programme.
Slurry TBM This pressurises the tunnel face with bentonite slurry which is also used to
export the excavated material from the tunnel. A treatment plant, outside the tunnel, is used
to extract the excavated material and return the bentonite to the face. This machine can
deal with rock more easily as it does not have to grind it to small particles. However control
of pressure can be an issue at shallow depths with the risk of disturbance of the soils above
and even blow out to the surface. The treatment plant is an expensive addition to the
process.
While the decision as to which machine is suitable for this project would be the subject of
further study, assuming that it is an EPB the alignment should have places of access to the
cutter head for maintenance and change of cutters at approximately 500m intervals. These
can be at convenient shafts or specifically formed intermediate blocks of treated ground.
Alternatively a contractor may choose compressed air for ground stability during cutter
maintenance. TBMs can bore any length of tunnel but their high initial cost lowers their cost
effectiveness for shorter distances.
Segmental concrete linings are installed by robot erectors in the tail skin at the back of the
TBM shield. The completed tunnel then emerges from the back of the shield as the shield
62
progresses forwards. There is a slight overbreak made by the cutter above the shield
diameter to allow ease of passage and directional change. An addition to this annulus is
created by the thickness of the shield. As the lining leaves the shield the annulus is
immediately pressure grouted to seal the void and prevent the ground closing
Segments are commonly 1.5m wide, 300mm thick with 6 to 8 segments forming each ring.
Waterproofing is provided by rubber gaskets abutting in the joints between the segments.
The gaskets are tested to ensure they can cope with the misalignment tolerance envisaged.
The segments are bolted together to initially compress the gaskets and aid erection.
Minor leakage may occur below the water table in non-cohesive soils, however this can often
be reduced or eliminated by back grouting.
A typical segmental lining ring is shown in Figure 19.
Wedged key
Figure 19: Principle of precast segmental lining (Note: ignore dimensions. Cross joints would be
staggered by alternate ring rotation)
A tunnel diameter is the usual desired cover above TBM segmentally lined tunnels. Ground
cover of less than a diameter can be achieved though, in soft ground, this usually requires
ground improvement over the tunnel depth and is usually limited to the tunnel portal areas.
63
It is desirable to limit the influence of a second bore on the first by having a separation of 2
to 3 x diameter centre to centre.
7.8.2 Twin tunnels versus single bore

Cross section, Dividing wall
For the purposes of fire and life safety and ventilation it would be necessary to construct a
separating wall along the centreline of a twin track single bore tunnel. The walkways would
be located either side of the central wall with means of escape through fire doors to the non
incident track. Sydneys recent Airport Link is a notable exception to this requirement.
Effect at stations and portals
Island platforms are generally considered preferable for station design however the twin
track single bore configuration is not compatible with island platform stations. The larger
diameter of the single bore may cause the stations and portal structures to be deeper.
Ground settlement issues
The settlement effects of a single bore would be more in terms of face loss (ground loss as a
percentage of excavation) due to the increased cross sectional area. However it would be
more concentrated. If the alignment is generally following a road then buildings either side
may be more onerously effected by the wider twin bore configuration. However if
settlements were likely to be an issue the tunnel separation can be reduced so that there is
one metre between the tunnel extrados if an Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) type of Tunnel
Boring Machine (TBM) was to be used. Adequate control of EPB pressures in soft ground
would be required.
64
Qualitative comparison
See Table 1 below for approximate dimensional comparison
Dimension
Twin Bore
Single Bore
Internal Diameter
6.2m
11.0m
Lining thickness
300mm
450mm
Volume of concrete/m
6 x 2 = 12m3
Lining = 16m3
% increase of Single
over twin bore
53%
Central Wall
8 x 0.3 = 2.4m3
Total 18.4m3
Excavated diameter
assuming 150mm
annulus for TBM
shield and grouting
7.1m
12.2
Excavated volume /m
39.6 x 2 = 79.2m3
117.0m3
48%
Table 1: Twin versus Single Bore approximate dimensional comparison
The additional cost for the volumes of concrete and excavated material of the single bore
would be part compensated for by the need for cross passages between the twin bores. If
NFPA 130 is adopted these would be required at 244m spacing between the stations.
There is likely to be little difference between the supply cost of two Tunnel Boring Machines
(TBMs) for the twin bore and one much larger TBM for the single bore.
The increased depth from tunnel crown to the track of a single bore may increase the cost of
stations and decline structures.
Sustainability
The additional quantities of excavated material and concrete for the single bore would make
this option much more resource and energy absorbing and have a much increased carbon
output.
Conclusion on twin tunnels versus single bore.
Due to increased cost, effect on station layout and less sustainability of the single bore when
compared with the twin bore it is recommended that bored tunnelled solutions adopt twin
tunnels.
65
7.9
Station design
7.9.1 Underground Stations

Layout
Underground stations can take many forms but can be summarised as:
1) Cut and Cover box such as Melbourne Central on MURL (Melbourne Underground
railway Loop). Most favoured architecturally due to increased amenity,
spaciousness and often a chance for daylight to penetrate into the depths of the
station.
7) Cavern such as on the Epping to Chatswood line in Sydney. Suitable at relatively
deep depths and where ground conditions are good such as competent rock
8) Tunnelled with platforms in separate tunnels such as a majority of the deep London
Underground and Parliament Station on the MURL. Least favoured due to the
reduced amenity and lack of openness.
Deep stations are to be avoided, if possible, due to cost and increased vertical circulation
which increases operational costs and passenger time.
Guide dimensions for station depth are given in Table 2.
Dimension
Comment
Road level to top of roof slab
1.5
To allow for utility reticulation
Roof slab structural depth
1.5
Concourse height
4.5
Concourse floor structure
1.0
Track to soffit
5.4
Total, Track level to ground

level
13.9
Includes allowance for false ceiling
Commensurate with TBM bored tunnel

depths
Table 2: Guide dimensions for station depth
A significant feature of station design is whether an island platform (between the two tracks)
is used or side platforms. It is usually perceived that the island platform is preferable for the
following reasons:
For am/pm tidal flow passengers can be less crowded as the adjacent platform can be
used for over spill.
The normal vertical circulation can be shared. (Emergency evacuation requirements,
catering for both platforms to be simultaneously evacuated, tend not to give island
platforms an advantage.)
66
While twin single track TBM bored tunnels are easily compatible with an island platform twin
track single bore configuration either in SCL tunnel or cut and cover are less so as they
would need to bifurcate either side of the station.
Structure
Station construction for the feasibility alignment discussed in this report would be cut and
cover dictated by their depth and ground conditions.
The walls would be constructed in a similar way to the cut and cover sections by secant,
contiguous or king post piles. A further option that could be considered is diaphragm walls
especially if the station is located in water bearing non cohesive ground. The walls would be
braced by the various floor levels and the roof. Flotation would be resisted by pile or wall
embedment. Embedment in a low permeability medium would seal against water ingress.
Generally with an island platform support to the floors can also be provided along the
platform centre line.
If the stations are located under roads they can be constructed under temporary decking or
the roof slab constructed in two halves in order to reduce the effects on traffic flows.
7.9.2 Elevated Stations

See section on viaducts for discussion of elevated stations.
67
7.10
Fire and Life Safety
7.10.1 Fire Engineering Process

The fire & life safety design of sub-surface rail infrastructure projects in Australia is generally
guided by the process specified by AS4825-2011 and detailed in the International Fire
Engineering Guidelines (IFEG). This process specifies development of a Fire Engineering
Brief (FEB), which specifies the objectives, fire safety measures, analysis methods and
acceptance criteria. This document gains approval via consultation with the relevant
stakeholders, which assures an acceptable fire safety design. A second document, the Fire
Engineering Report (FER), details the fire safety provisions of the actual design.
The relevant stakeholders in this process include:
End User
Authority Having Jurisdiction
Train Operator
Rail Network Manager
7.10.2 Applicable Legislation & Standards
The principal applicable legislation and standards are:
Rail Safety Act 2008

BCA 2011 Building Code of Australia
VRIOGS 002.1 Rev A 2011 Railway Station Design Standard and Guidelines
AS 4825-2011 Tunnel fire safety
AS 1668.1-1998 The use of ventilation and air conditioning - Fire and smoke control in
multi-compartment buildings
AS 1668.2-2002 The use of ventilation and air conditioning in buildings - Ventilation
design for indoor air contaminant control
SRA Guidelines Section D Railway Tunnel Services
For fire safety, the standards listed above are underpinned or supported by other guidance
and standards including:
International Fire Engineering Guidelines

USAs National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 130 Standard for Fixed Guideway
Transit and Passenger Rail Systems, 2010
NFPA 92B Standard for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria and Large Spaces,
2009
SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Society of Fire Protection Engineers
68
The primary standard for the tunnels is AS 4825.
The stations would be required to comply with VRIOGS 002.1. The primary referenced
standard for the station platforms is NFPA 130. For the stations above platform level, BCA
applies. BCA is assumed not to apply to the station platforms as they are extensions of the
tunnels.
Due to the difficulty of demonstrating compliance with the Deemed-to-Satisfy (DTS)
provisions of the BCA in underground stations, a full performance-based design is
recommended as per the provisions in VRIOGS 002.1. The performance requirements of the
BCA should be used for the station design above platform level and NFPA 130 for the
platform designs in order to demonstrate acceptable levels of life safety.
7.10.3 Principal Characteristics

Tunnels & Underground Stations
The project plans to include a number of tunnels and underground stations.
The tunnels would either be TBM bored SCL mined) or cut-and-cover. If a tunnel is bored it
would be twin-bore, single-track type. If a tunnel is SCL or cut-and-cover it would be doubletrack, with a solid dividing wall constructed between the two tracks to provide separation.
Both methods comply with AS 4825-2011. If the tunnels are longer than 250m, they would
need to be treated as Long Tunnels under the provisions of AS 4825-2011.
It is envisaged that all sub-surface stations would be of the island-platform type, regardless
of the method of tunnel construction.
At this stage in the process, the design of stations may be covered or open. If covered, even
with just a canopy, they would be classified as sub-surface stations and the provisions of
NFPA 130-2010 would need to be taken into account.
Traffic
The rail line would carry heavy-rail suburban passenger traffic. Initial traffic levels are
envisaged to be 3 trains per hour (TPH), rising to 6 TPH following subsequent improvements
to the mainline.
Occupants
Load - The passenger occupant peak loading per train would be rolling stock dependent.
However typical load profiles follow a fairly standard pattern, with peak loadings experienced
during the AM rush period, and a lower peak occurring during the PM rush period.
Language - It is expected that all passengers would be able to understand signs and verbal
instructions in English, even if it is not their first language.
Awareness - It is expected that all passengers a, be awake and alert, however some may be
under the influence of alcohol, depending on the time of day (e.g. evenings and weekends).
69
Mobility - It is expected that most passengers are fully mobile, however a proportion would
be Persons of Restricted Mobility (PRM) for which special provision must be made. The
normal statistical distribution for mobility for the average Australian population is that 5% of
the passengers may have some mobility restriction and qualify as PRMs, while less than 1%
are expected to be using mobility aids such as wheelchairs, crutches, walking sticks, etc.
Other occupants would be drivers and guards, who are expected to be fully trained and
mobile, and fluent in English.
7.10.4 Fire Safety Objectives

The main fire safety objectives of the project are to:
Achieve compliance with legislation and standards

Ensure life safety of the public, railway staff and the emergency services
Ensure service continuity and asset protection for the infrastructure
Provide suitable means of access for the fire brigade
7.10.5 Fire Hazards & Risks

Frequency of Fires
The likelihood of serious fire incidents in the tunnels is extremely low. The risk of a fire
incident is influenced by a number of factors including the characteristics of the tunnel (such
as its length), the frequency and type of the train traffic and operations.
The tunnels would be twin-bore, single track and with uni-directional traffic in each bore, so
risk of collision is low.
Typical train fire causes arise from various defects within the train equipment such as
electrical faults, overheating of brakes, flammable liquid leakages. These typically result in
under-car fires on passenger trains. Another common cause of fire on passenger trains is
arson and/or vandalism. These typically result in in-car fires on passenger trains.
The UK Railway Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) carried out an extensive statistical
analysis of the causes of train fires over the period 1992-2000 ("Train Fires - Special Topic
Report", January, 2001). The data showed that 44% of all train fires and 56% of passenger
train fires were arson-related. For Electric Multiple Units (EMUs) the percentage was even
higher: 75% of fires on EMUs were arson-related. Technical causes accounted for 39% of all
train and rail vehicle fires. Non-EMU types accounted for 77% of the technical-cause fires
over the period studied.
Arson and vandalism incidents typically occur on trains with a low passenger load.
Conversely, the risk to life safety is highest on trains with a high passenger load. The RSSB
report data revealed a very low incidence of casualties from fire incidents over the period
studied, as most of the fires were of a non-serious nature.
70
The RSSB 2001 "Special Topic Report" cited above also found that the risk of fire from train
faults is generally higher for diesel and diesel-electric traction-powered types of rolling stock
than for the electrical traction-powered rolling stock which would be most likely for Rowville.
At this stage, the specific rolling stock that would use the line is not defined. However, it is
likely to be suburban passenger EMU-type rolling stock, currently envisaged to be 1500V
DC. Should DMUs or other rolling stock types be envisaged, it would alter the fire safety
risks.
It is assumed at this stage that all rolling stock would have side detrainment facilities.
7.10.6 Concept Requirements -Tunnels

The exact number and length of the tunnels is yet to be finalised, however the provisions of
AS4825 and NFPA 130-2010 need to be taken into account in the concept stage of tunnel
design.
Likewise, the exact number of sub-surface stations is yet to be finalised, however the
provisions of BCA 2009 and NFPA 130-2010 need to be taken into account in the concept
stage of station design.
Some basic operational assumptions are as follows:
In event of fire occurring on a train in a tunnel, the train will proceed to the next available
station if at all possible prior to detraining.
If detrainment between stations becomes necessary, persons will evacuate onto a side
walkway and be directed via wayfinding signage to the nearest suitable exit from the
tunnel.
In this event, the tunnel ventilation system will be employed to maintain a tenable
environment for the duration of the evacuation.
If detrainment occurs at a station, persons will evacuate through the station's egress
routes to a point of safety at ground level.
In this event, the smoke control systems provided at the station will be employed to
maintain a tenable environment for the duration of the evacuation
Specific requirements that would influence the tunnel concept include:
Fire Load - This would be rolling stock dependent, however based on current rolling stock
types in service, a fire size of 20MW should be sufficient for safeguarding at this stage. This
value can be reviewed as the project progresses and more information becomes available.
Egress - Evacuation requirements would drive a number of high-level design parameters:
In the tunnels a side walkway would be required, the minimum dimensions of which are
specified in NFPA 130-2010, Clause 6.2.1.9.
Provision must be made for evacuation via the portals as well.
At each place of safety on the surface, provision must be made for safe dispersal of the
evacuating persons.
71
Maximum permissible distance between tunnel exits is 240m (AS 4825-2011, Table 7.1,
Clause 8(a) - NFPA130 states 244m between cross-passages, 762m between exits to
surface) - these may be cross-passages to the adjacent bore, or exits to surface. It is
recommended that cross-passages be provided on a 240m maximum spacing, with
exits to surface provided at no greater than 762m spacing. However the provision of
cross passages is expensive and value engineering together with fire engineering may
be able to increase these distances during detailed design
Smoke control is required in the tunnels. The exact type of smoke control system
employed would be dependent on tunnel length, amongst other factors. The smoke
control system needs to provide tenable conditions along the evacuation routes for the
duration of the evacuation. It is also desirable for it to provide a relatively smoke-free
intervention route for the emergency services, particularly fire-fighters.
Any intermediate shafts that provide evacuation facilities would require pressurised
stairs.
Emergency lighting and illuminated wayfinding must be provided.
Intervention, Fire-Fighting and Passive Provision
Hydrants must be provided at portals.

A fire main with hydrants must be provided along the length of the tunnel.
The fire-fighting water supply must be provided with a redundant supply and booster
facility.
Provision must be made for emergency vehicles at all intervention points.
Structural fire resistance must meet provisions of Table 4.4 in AS 4825-2011.
7.10.7 Concept Requirements - Stations

Assuming the stations are covered and thus defined as sub-surface, specific requirements
that would influence the stations' concepts include:
Fire Load - This would be rolling stock dependent, however based on current rolling stock
types in service, a fire size of 20MW peak HRR, for a train on fire at a platform scenario,
should be sufficient for safeguarding at this stage. This value can be reviewed as the project
progresses and more information becomes available. For other types of fire scenarios,
typically "small" fire scenarios such as luggage fires, a fire size of 1MW peak HRR should be
sufficient for safeguarding at this stage. This also can be reviewed as the project progresses
and more information becomes available.
Egress - Evacuation requirements would drive a number of high-level design parameters
and must satisfy the requirements of NFPA 130:
Maximum travel distance on the platform to an egress route not to exceed 100m;
Capacity to evacuate the platform in not more than 4 minutes;
Capacity to evacuate from the platform to a point of safety in not more than 6 minutes;
72
Smoke control systems that provide tenable evacuation conditions may allow these
evacuation times to be modified, following engineering analysis;
Evacuation stairs (and elevators if used) and their associated lobbies shall be fireprotected and pressurised;
Emergency lighting shall be provided;
A means of emergency communication must be provided.

Intervention, Fire-Fighting and Passive Provision
Fire-fighting lifts and stairs must be provided. These need to be fire-protected and
pressurised;
A source of fire-fighting water should be provided on the platforms, via fire-mains and
standpipes or hydrants.
Structural fire resistance must meet the provisions of BCA and NFPA 130.
73
7.11
Ventilation Concepts
7.11.1 Tunnel Ventilation System

The purpose of the Tunnel Ventilation System (TVS) is to:
Maintain conditions for the comfort of passengers and personnel during normal and
congested operations, and
Provide conditions for the safe evacuation of passengers and personnel, and tenable
conditions for the intervention of the emergency crews, in the event of an incident.
During normal operations the TVS maintains air temperatures in the running tunnels and in
the public areas of the underground stations to support the comfort of the passengers and
personnel.
Where twin bore, singletrack tunnels are used, it is generally possible to ventilate them
passively by using the movement of the trains to exchange the air to atmosphere through
draught relief shafts generally located before entry into a station.
7.11.2 Station Ventilation

A large part of the train related heat is rejected during the dwell periods at the station, and
the ventilation strategy should be designed to capture this heat before it enters the public
areas. This can be achieved by using Under Platform Extract (UPE) to capture the
underframe heat gains, and possibly Over Track Extract (OTE) to capture the heat from the
condensers of roof mounted air-conditioning units. The UPE and OTE make up the Track
Extract System (TES).
Most of the underframe heat comes from the brake resistors, and the UPE should be seen
only as a part of the overall energy strategy for energy management. The regeneration of
braking energy can both improve heat management, and reduce the overall consumption of
traction energy. The purpose of the TES is to capture, as far as is possible, the electrical
energy that cannot be recovered economically. If a significant part of the braking energy is
recovered, then the amount of UPE can be reduced accordingly to bring further benefits.
Platform Screen Doors are often incorporated into underground station design as they have
a safety and operational benefit. They do have an impact on the ventilation depending on
whether they are full height sealing the track way or part height.
In the case of underground stations without full height Platform Screen Doors (PSDs), the
movement of the trains draws air through the station entrances at ground level, ventilating
the public areas. This can be sufficient to maintain acceptable air temperatures in the public
areas for the comfort of the passengers.
Full height PSDs reduce the train heat in the public areas of the stations, and also the
related ventilation. Where there are heat gains from lighting, escalators and other fixed M&E
equipment, along with solar gain through glazed panels, the installation of full height PSDs
74
can result in higher air temperatures in the public areas. If the option of full height PSDs is to
be carried forward, their implications on the design of the TES and on conditions in the
public areas should be reviewed with some care.
Full height PSDs also increase the temperature of the air in the running tunnels, with
implications on the operation of the car-borne air-conditioning units, particularly during
congested operations. Some metros, particularly those operating in sub-tropical climates,
use fan-coil units to cool the tunnels but such complications are less likely in this instance.
If PSDs are considered in future design development a key consideration is whether a single
dedicated rolling stock would operate on the line as the doors can only be positioned to suit
one configuration. Replacing PSDs to match a new configuration at any future time would
require significant rail occupation.
7.11.3 Public and Back of House Areas

With adequate ventilation of the public areas of the underground stations, it should be
possible to maintain conditions of acceptable comfort without the use of air-conditioning.
The back of house areas include staff rooms and offices, and technical rooms.
The staff rooms should be ventilated and cooled to normal workplace standards for the
comfort of staff who may occupy those areas for the greater part of a shift.
Technical rooms define their own requirements depending upon the equipment contained
inside the rooms. Transformers and switchgear are likely to need mechanical ventilation but
are able to tolerate control temperatures of 35 or 40oC. Rooms that contain signalling
equipment or computers may need to be cooled to 25oC, with the possibility of humidity
control and the filtration of dust from the ventilating air. The ventilation of gassing batteries
should prevent the leakage of hydrogen from the room.
It follows that, in addition to the ventilation and cooling standards, there may be specific
requirements for the ducting of the ventilating air both to and from the rooms. Those
requirements, along with the associated ratings for security and acoustic grading, should be
considered in the architecture of the stations.
7.11.4 Incident Ventilation Operations

Tunnel Incidents
The running tunnels of underground railways are, almost without exception, ventilated
longitudinally for reasons of capital cost, and for the effectiveness of smoke control. If the
main TVS fans are located at each end of the station boxes, they can be used to ventilate
the smoke from either a train fire in a tunnel or at the station, without allowing smoke to pass
from one ventilation section to the next. It is important for the TVS to maintain a separation
between ventilation sections so that the operating and evacuation procedures can be
developed with confidence.
75
The length of tunnel between two underground stations has little effect upon the rating of the
TVS fans. The number of stalled trains in a tunnel and their blockage ratio do increase the
required rating of the fans.
If a tunnel terminates in a cutting, then there should be some form of TVS equipment at the
portal to ensure reversibility of the airflow. An alternative to the use of remote fans is the use
of jet fans. If used the necessary space for jet fans would need to be available. Jet fans are
inexpensive and adaptable, but they are vulnerable to damage during an incident and must
be maintained inside the tunnel. However, they are used widely in road tunnels and in some
underground railways.
The case of short tunnels raises the need for operating procedures whereby a train is
allowed to enter the tunnel only if its way is clear to proceed to the station or to the grade or
elevated section outside the tunnel. If there is a risk of congestion, then the train should be
held outside the tunnel. AS 4825 suggests that longitudinal ventilation may be necessary in
tunnels over 250m in length.
Station Incidents
The smoke from a train fire at an underground station is more difficult to capture and to
control than in a running tunnel. The reason for this is that smoke has the opportunity to
spread throughout the platform area. There are recognised strategies to deal with the
situation, though most rely upon the larger air-handling capacities of bulk delivery TVS fans.
If full height PSDs are used, it would be essential to use the OTE to capture as much smoke
as possible on the track side of the screen. Smoke that enters the public areas could
compromise the tenability of the evacuation and intervention routes, and must be contained
as far as is possible. The UPE should not be used, since it would draw smoke down to
platform level with immediate consequences on the evacuation routes.
It is often feasible to operate the TVS fans as point extracts at each end of the platform to
extract smoke and maintain tenable conditions during the evacuation period. With
considered design, the TVS fans can maintain critical airflow velocities at the bottom of the
stairs and escalators. The fans draw air from atmosphere through the station entrances and
maintain smoke-free conditions to the bottom of the stair and escalator wells at platform
level. This is a powerful mechanism that brings the place of safety to the lower level of the
station.
Fires on the platform or at concourse level should also be considered. Such fires are
classified as suitcase or litter bin fires and, by definition, they are relatively small and easy to
deal with. The fire size assigned to such incidents might be 0.5MW or less. The TVS fans
can be energised to capture, or to dilute, the smoke from such a fire and to maintain
conditions for the safe evacuation of the passengers. Special consideration of the additional
fire load would be necessary if commercial activity were to be allowed within the station.
76
Inter-station Shafts
In the event of a fire on a train that is stalled in a running tunnel, the operator should be able
to ventilate the smoke in the preferred direction; driving the smoke over the shorter length of
the incident train. If there is a second non-incident train in the same tunnel the choice no
longer exists since smoke should not be driven over the second train.
The situation can be avoided if there is never more than one train in a ventilation section.
This can be achieved on high frequency lines if the length of the tunnel is 1.0km or less, and
there are rules against a second train being allowed into a congested tunnel. Where such a
ruling would disrupt the service, or the recovery from a delay, it may be necessary to install
one or more inter-station ventilation shafts.
The need for inter-station ventilation shafts depends on the frequency of the service. For the
low frequency expected on the Rowville line of 6 trains per hour the maximum 3km between
stations may be satisfactory with one or even none.
77
7.12
Drainage
Viaducts drainage may be simply provided by a structural fall in the viaduct deck to outlets
above supporting piers and drainage downpipe concealed within the rc piers
Stations drainage would be as for conventional building drainage except for below ground
areas that would require pumped drainage if below the level of adjacent gravity drainage.
Tunnels cut-off drains across the entry of tunnels would be provided and a sump at the low
point of tunnels requiring pumping to the public drainage system. At Huntingdale Station a
low point and line sump and pump would be required around 300-400m chainage from the
Station.
Open cut the track area would be a large catchment area requiring careful consideration of
drainage for heavy rainstorms. Drainage would be provided by a sump at the low point and
possibly intermediate cut-off drains and sump with sump pumps pumping to the public
drainage system.
78
8.
8.1
Signalling
Basis of Design
The document Summary of Rowville concept timetable modelling assessment, prepared by

Public Transport Division, identifies that 3 trains per hour in each direction can be provided
between Rowville and Flinders Street with the current signalling system on the Dandenong
Rail Corridor. To provide a greater number of services on the Rowville line the capacity of
the Dandenong Rail line would need to be increased. Implementing ETCS Level (2) could be
one possible solution.
Based on the above, this investigation would be limited to the area between tie in point to
Dandenong Rail corridor and Rowville.
Additionally, this signalling investigation is based on the following requirements:
8.2
Requirements for the new branch line to Rowville, and tie in point between Oakleigh and
Huntingdale on the existing Dandenong Rail Corridor.
Service frequency would be up to 3 trains per hour in each direction
Line speed of 110kph
Track gradient is 2% maximum
Additional track work for new line:
Two uni-directional tracks (one up and one down)
Six sidings on the up end of Rowville
Two crossovers on up end of Rowville
Existing infrastructure
The Dandenong Rail Corridor currently consists of 4 tacks from Flinders street to Caulfield
Station and two tracks to Dandenong.
The signalling infrastructure arrangements along this corridor comprise of track side signals
and train stops. A combination of 3 and 4 aspect signalling has been provided from Flinders
St to Huntingdale.
Signalling interlocking systems along the corridor consist of the following:
Caulfield SSI interlocking and Signal Control Panel

Oakleigh Geographic Relay interlocking and Signal Control Switch Panel
79
8.3
Implementing new Rowville Rail Link
In order implement the new Rowville Rail Line, and provide the required operational
requirements, two options were considered for the signalling infrastructure. The options were
as follows:
Option 1 Extension of existing signalling Infrastructure
Option 2 Provide next generation signalling system

These options are further discussed below.
Option 1: Extension of existing signalling Infrastructure

This option would involve modifications to the existing signalling infrastructure on the
Dandenong Rail Corridor, and extending the existing signalling through to the new line to
Rowville.
To implement the new line, a link would need to be established between Oakleigh and
Huntingdale stations. Accordingly, the existing signalling infrastructure at the station would
need to be modified. This would involve the following:
New Turnouts to tie in to the Dandenong Rail Corridor

Modification to the interlocking at Oakleigh
Modifications to signals between Oakleigh and Huntingdale Stations.
Potential upgrade of local signalling power supply
Interfacing between interlocking at Oakleigh and Rowville
The signalling infrastructure required for the new line would be based on meeting the
operational requirements of 3 trains per hour. To achieve this, the following infrastructure
would probably be provided:
Computer based interlocking system at Rowville, to control the entire line up to the
interface at Huntingdale.
Local control centre at Rowville.
Object Controllers and signalling equipment boxes distributed throughout the Rowville
line
3 and 4 aspect way side colour light signalling
Mainline signals spaced at a nominal spacing of 1.4km
Dwarf signals for sidings
Train detection equipment
Active train protection via train stops
2 Crossovers on the up end of Rowville to accommodate train turn around and siding
moves.
Trail rollout protection for sidings

The 3 and 4 aspect way side signalling with a signal spacing of 1.4km would meet the
operational requirements for the new Rowville rail line and cater for 3 trains per hour.
80
Notwithstanding this, it was concluded taking this approach would be appropriate, for the
following reasons:
Utilising 3 and 4 aspect way side signalling for the new line would maintain consistency
with the Dandenong Rail corridor rail system
Maintaining a nominal signal spacing of 1.4km would be consistent with the Cranbourne
and Pakenham line signal spacing.
A level of future proofing would be provided for the line, as the number of services can
be increased without requiring new signalling infrastructure
Option 2: Provide next generation signalling system

This option is based on providing a next generation signalling system for the new Rowville
Rail Line.
There are a number of different solutions available from different manufacturers that can be
considered next generation signalling systems. To date, there has been no direction
provided regarding a particular type of system, or even the requirements for the system.
Notwithstanding the above, as highlighted in the design basis, the document Summary of
Rowville concept timetable modelling assessment, prepared by Public Transport Division,
ETCS Level (2) has been identified as a system that may need to be implemented on the
Dandenong Rail Corridor, to enable the required services to be provided to Rowville.
Accordingly, the next generation signalling system that would be considered for the new line
would be ETCS Level (2).
As with Option 1, modifications would need to be undertaken at Huntingdale station, to
implement the link to the new line. The changes required at this location would be similar for
this option.
In relation to the new rail line, rolling out ETCS Level (2) would require the following
infrastructure to be provided:
Retrofitting rolling stock with driver panels, communication and processing units, and
sensory equipment
Installation of track side transponder units
Installation of radio block centres
Computer based interlocking system at Rowville, to control the entire line up to the
interface at Huntingdale
Comparison of Options
In comparing the required signalling infrastructure for the two options as highlighted above,
there are a number of benefits and limitations with each. These are further described below.
Extension of existing signalling Infrastructure
Retaining and expanding on the existing signalling infrastructure has a number of key
benefits. This includes the following:
81
Existing rolling stock can be utilised and no modifications will be required

Drivers will not need training to operate a new system
Maintenance will not need training to maintain a new system
Project risks will be reduced, as a tried and tested system will be utilised
Risk on impacting existing train service operations will be reduced
Staging and rollout of project will be simpler
There will be no interfacing issues between two different types of signalling systems
New technology will not be put into the system, that may conflict with the direction and
planning of system rollouts across the greater network in the future
There are also a number of limitations in retaining and expanding the existing infrastructure.
This includes the following:
The infrastructure would not be able to provide as high a capacity as a next generation
signalling system
Expanding the existing system on the new line would provide infrastructure that may
become redundant, if a new system is rolled out on the network on the future
Rollout of ETCS Level (2)

Replacing the existing infrastructure with ETCS Level (2), and providing this system for the
new Rowville rail link would have a number of key benefits. This includes the following:
It would provide a relatively higher frequency service

The system would have the ability to increase line capacity, without significant changes
to the infrastructure
Providing a new system on a Greenfield site is easier to implement and has lower risks
than on an existing line. Accordingly, this project would be a good opportunity for the
trial of a new system that can be rolled out to the remainder of the network.
There are also a number of limitations associated with providing ETCS Level (2). This
includes the following:
Existing rolling stock cannot be utilised in their current configuration, and modifications
will be required
Drivers will need training to operate the new system
Maintenance will need training to maintain the new system
Project risks will be increased, as a system that has not been previously implemented or
proven on the network will be utilised
Risk on impacting existing train service operations will be increased
Staging and rollout of project will be more complex
There will be interfacing issues between two different types of signalling systems, that
will need to be addressed
The new technology may conflict with the direction and planning of future system
rollouts across the greater network
82
Conclusion
Based on a comparison of the benefits and limitations of both options above, the option to
extend the existing signalling infrastructure is the most appropriate for this project.
Whilst it has been identified that a Greenfield site would provide an opportunity to trial a new
system without directly impacting existing rail services, providing a next generation signalling
system would have an impact on the wider network. As such, determining the feasibility of
providing this system cannot be isolated to this new line alone. Consideration would need to
be given to the requirements for the entire Metropolitan network, and a viable solution that
can be rolled out to all rail lines in the future.
Other Considerations
The requirements and benefits of bi-directional lines was considered for the new line.
Bidirectional running allows the up and down peaks to be catered for better, but it relies on
storage of trains at Rowville to gain any benefit. Also, the service constraints are likely to be
on the Dandenong line, and not on the new Rowville line.
Based on the above, it was concluded that there would not be a significant benefit in
implementing bidirectional train running, and unidirectional would suffice for the current
operational and service requirements of the new Rowville line.
Concept Signalling Scheme
A concept signalling scheme based on the preferred option (i.e. Option 1) has been
developed and can be referred to in Appendix B.
The scheme meets the requirements for three trains per hour, based on using existing
signalling principles and system.
83
9.
Traction Power and Overhead Line Electrification
This section identifies new traction power and Overhead infrastructure required by the
Rowville Rail Study including associated works needed on the existing Dandenong Rail
Corridor at tie in locations.
As the interfacing electrified network is 1500 V DC; it is pragmatic to assume that the
Rowville Line would be a compatible 1500 V DC system.
The Rowville Corridor route length is nominally 12km. It would interface with the mainline at
Huntingdale Station, although track configuration would require a complete rebuild of the
station in the up direction. The design of the Overhead infrastructure requires consideration
of track in open route, viaduct, cut/cover and tunnel.
9.1
Power
The 1500V DC reticulation is supported by substations and tiestations.
9.1.1 Tie Stations

In broad terms a tiestation is a substation without a high voltage supply. The principle
function of a tie station is to mitigate voltage drop and provide electrical protection.
9.1.2 Substations
Substations provide:
high voltage AC panel

1500 V DC panels and transformers/rectifiers
high voltage AC signal power panel
local low voltage AC power panel for lighting and power
SCADA panel for remote monitoring and control of the above
electrolysis panel
negative return and earthing
The upstream side of the substation high voltage AC panel would be supplied at a voltage of
22 kV AC by the local electricity distributor. For this corridor this is likely to be United Energy.
Substations provide traction power for trains through the Overhead conductors. Trains pick
up power from the Overhead conductors by means of pantographs mounted on the train
roof. Within the train the traction motors use the power with the return circuit to the
substation via the train wheels and rail.
Power is provided in discrete electrical sections with the up and down mainlines on different
sections. Sectioning occurs at substations via open overlaps in the Overhead. Where tracks
are joined by crossovers, electrical sectioning is afforded by section insulators. Sectioning is
84
primarily for electrical protection purposes monitored and controlled by instrumentation but is
also used for isolating sections of the network for maintenance and other purposes.
As a general rule substations are required at:
the end of sections which includes the end of lines

places of high load such as stabling yards
junctions to provide separate electrical sections for converging routes and security of
supply for the main lines in (n-1) substation failure mode
Apart from the above principal substation positions, substations or tie stations are required at
4km nominal separation.
9.1.3 Rowville Line Power Requirements

The number and location of substations or tie stations would be determined by network
analysis at the preliminary design stage.
There are existing substations at Oakleigh and Westall, 4.8 km apart. The existing
Huntingdale Station is 900m on the down side of Oakleigh Substation. If Huntingdale Station
is to be rebuilt in the up direction, Oakleigh Substation should also be considered for
rebuilding to suit the Rowville electrification.
Up to three other sub/tie stations would be required with the following considerations:
design would be for the normal timetable with one substation offline. This is the (n-1)
failure scenario. Future proofing should also be considered
substations should be totally enclosed with each 22kV supply from a different source to
its neighbours
location of substation would be somewhat governed by availability of a 22kV source
if tie-stations are used they should be future proofed with space provided for conversion
to substations at a later date
substations on the surface would be considerably cheaper than those underground
because:
no excavation required
specification for equipment and fire rating is less onerous
access should not be an issue
From a power perspective twin track provides more security to the traction system because:
there is more copper available for supply and hence mitigation of volt drop
for negative return there is double the rail area available for the return path to the
substation and additional security of the conductor path
With a new line the power system design should consider the catenary and contact traction
conductors without the need for additional (supplementary) along track feeders.
85
Table 3 lists the cabling that is required for traction systems.

Application
Conductors
Comments
22kV substation supply

cable
Triple core insulated 185mm

aluminium conductors with
copper screen. XLPE/PVC
insulation/ sheath
Usually between suppliers

metering pole and the AC
panel of the substation
Substation feeder cables to

mainline
Single core insulated 400mm

aluminium conductor with
insulation/ sheath
Two cables per electrical

section

stabling

aluminium conductor with
insulation/ sheath
Three cables per six stabling

roads each holding a 6-car
set
Track to substation
negatives

aluminium cables from track to
the negative pillar. 400mm
aluminium cables from negative
pillar to substation. XLPE/PVC
insulation/ sheath
Number of cables to be
determined by power system
design. For estimating
consider the number of
negatives to be the same as
the number of positives
Electrolysis
Single core 150mm copper

XLPE/PVC insulation/sheath
Electrolysis on open route is

generally bare aerial 210mm
aluminium supported on the
Overhead structures

signalling system
Up to 2.2kV AC
Table 3: Traction System Cabling
9.2
Electrolysis
Overhead traction power systems provide power at the pantograph for the traction motors
with the return circuit to the substation via the rail. Current return would be through the path
of least resistance. In a perfect world all the traction return current would be through the
rails, however, in reality some of the return current is through the earth and any conductive
material of utility service lines that happens to be conveniently situated. This is termed stray
current. The nature of DC power results in pitting of the conductive material where the
current leaves the utility service on its path back to the substation negative bus and is
termed electrolysis.
86
Electrical Safety Victoria requires the Accredited Rail Operator (ARO) and utility companies
to collaborate to mitigate stray current corrosion. Area tests would establish the need for any
mitigation following commissioning of new lines and changes to the timetable.
Appropriate mitigation measures may include:
drainage bonds from 3rd party assets to the rail
an aerial conductor back to the negative bus of the substation
9.3
Overhead
Overhead would generally be to the current mainline standard which requires a weight
regulated catenary and contact. However, a weight regulated catenary and contact may be
inappropriate in the tunnel or cut and cover sections due to greater space requirements for
this type of conductor system. To minimise costs, the tunnel section would require
consideration of a conductor beam. Subsequently, this system would also require type
approval from MTM.
Figure 20: Typical Open route Overhead
Generally conductor sizes and fittings should be to the current standard to avoid stores and
maintenance issues in the future.
There would be five route conditions to accommodate:
interface with Dandenong corridor (mainline)

open route
87
elevated and viaducts

tunnel and restricted space
stabling
9.3.1 Conductors
Table 4 below summarises the different route types and the associated conductor systems
to be considered.
Route type
Application
Conductors
Comments
Mainline open
route and
elevated viaduct
Catenary and
contact wire
37/2.50 catenary,
161mm contact both
hard drawn copper
Weight regulated to 20kN and

15kN respectively
Tunnel, cut and

cover, and
restricted space
Wire option:
Catenary and
contact wire
37/2.50 catenary,
161mm contact both
hard drawn copper
Weight regulated or gas

anchored to 12kN and 12kN
respectively
Conductor beam
option:
Aluminium conductor
beam with 161mm
contact wire
Non-tensioned contact wire.

Total copper equivalent area is
1200mm. This option requires
type approval from MTM
Catenary option:
37/2.50 catenary,
161mm contact all
hard drawn copper
Weight regulated to 12kN and

11.2kN respectively
161mm contact wire

only
This option requires type

approval from MTM
Stabling areas
Catenary and
contact wire
Tramway option:
Trolley system
Table 4: Overhead Conductor Systems
9.3.2 Interface with Dandenong corridor

Huntingdale Station would be rebuilt in the up direction to suit the Rowville junction track
changes. It is likely that most of the existing Overhead support structures in the area of the
junction would be replaced with new infrastructure. New tension lengths from the Rowville
line would be fully weight regulated and would interface with the Dandenong mainline
tension lengths on the up side of the new Huntingdale Station. Sectioning requirements
would require either section insulators or overlap interfaces.
9.3.3 Open route

The catenary and contact conductors are supported at spans of not more than 70m with the
contact height varying from an absolute minimum of 4.42m to not more the 5.8m on
88
mainlines. The normal conductor height is taken as 5.2m. Because there would be no grade
crossings there is no requirement to lift the wire above a height of 5.2m on this route.
Maximum tension length would be 1200m in accordance with the Overhead Standard.
9.3.4 Elevated and viaducts

The catenary and contact would be similarly supported as for the Open route. However,
elevated tracks and viaducts increase the risk of conductor displacement by wind (blow-off).
The mitigation strategy is to design shorter span lengths and lower the wire height to reduce
effect of vehicle sway of the pantograph at contact wire height. Span lengths for elevated
tracks can be taken as 60m with a contact wire height of 5.0m which would suit an operating
wind speed of 35 m/s. These conditions provide the same security as a 70m span at 5.2m
for an operating wind speed of 28 m/s.
9.3.5 Tunnels and restricted space

The cost of tunnelling is related to area of excavation and hence diameter of bore. The
diameter of the bore would depend on:
Top of rail height below tunnel centre (how close can the track be to the bottom of the
tunnel)
Overhead above pantograph, considerations include:
Vehicle height
Minimum operating height of pantograph
Overhead encumbrance
Insulation depth
The rail height below tunnel centre would be dealt with elsewhere in this document.
Rollingstock gauge for the electrified network, mm
Electrical clearance, mm
Minimum contact height, mm
4270
150
4420
The above minimum contact height needs to account for vertical curves, bounce, tolerances,
sags due to temperature and strain creep. For the current level of design it would be
appropriate to use a minimum contact height of 4500 mm in tunnels.
There are usually three Overhead options considered for tunnels, cut and cover and other
areas of restricted clearance:
Wire options - catenary and contact conductor

- Fixed terminated (as found in the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop)
- Auto tensioned (to be developed for MTM system)
Conductor beam (to be developed for MTM system)
89
Fixed terminated catenary / contact (MURL):

This system is no longer appropriate for future applications because the contact wire sags at
temperatures above 15C to an extent dependent on timetables, gradients and size of trains.
This indeterminacy poses an unacceptable risk to future requirements
Auto tensioned:
For tunnel section, the system requirements would be:
span length, maximum 35m

contact height, minimum 4500 mm
catenary height, maximum 5100 mm
Typical tunnel internal diameter is expected to be in the order of 6200 mm. This equipment
would use existing OCS fittings but would require supporting brackets to be developed.
Figure 21: Auto tensioned tunnel equipment
90
Conductor beam:
For tunnel sections, the system requirements would be:
span length, maximum 12m

contact height, minimum 4500mm
For this equipment a typical tunnel internal diameter is expected to be in the order of 5800
mm. However, minor additional tolerance needs to be included to accommodate lack of
tunnel roundness and other construction impediments to installing a level conductor bar. The
conductor beam has not been used in Melbourne to date but it is used throughout Europe,
Japan and recently in Shanghai. In Hong Kong, MTR are considering replacing their existing
tunnel catenary / contact system with a conductor beam.
Figure 22 and Figure 23 below show the pantograph sway profile with a conductor beam,
and an example of the Kyoto Overhead tunnel system.
Figure 22: Conductor beam with swayed pantograph head outlines
91
Figure 23: Conductor beam, Kyoto
92
Table 5 compares the wire option and conductor beam system in tunnels
Element /
considerations
Catenary / contact
Conductor beam
Static interface
Minimum tunnel diameter.
This ssumes 4.5m contact
wire above vehicles not
higher than 4.27m
6200 mm. Other diameters 5800 mm. This is subject to

may be possible but
detailed design
require specific detail
design to prove
Contact wire to crown
700 mm
350 mm
Supports, maximum
spacing
35 m
12 m
Adjustment
Gradients by setting
dropper lengths
Gradients required to be
built into supports
Tension
12kN/12kN
catenary/contact
None
Tensioning arrangement
Weights or gas anchors
None in tunnel. Transition

element needs to transfer
above ground tension to a
convenient anchor position
Construction
1200m continuous lengths

of conductor
Furrer+Frey system. 12m

(11.9m) length sections
bolted together. Contact is
clipped to the underside of
the beam.
Siemens system solid beam
does not require a separate
contact wire.
Potential risk for

emergency walkway and
at platforms
Unlikely to be an issue
Stiffness
Elastic
Rigid
Resonance
Existing system and

understood
Resonance is a known
problem requiring damping
Transition, tunnel to
above ground
Overlap at portal.
Dynamically similar
systems
Overlap at portal. Stiffness

of beam needs to be
decreased incrementally to
match that of the elastic
Safety interface
Conductor drop zone
(European standard)
Dynamic interface
93
Element /
considerations
Catenary / contact
Conductor beam
system
Pantograph interface
Pantograph stiffness
Existing system and

understood
The existing Melbourne

pantograph has a relatively
stiff head and may have a
poor response to a
conductor beam resulting in
greater attrition rates on
carbon and copper
Pantograph running
height in tunnels
4500 mm
4500 mm
Speed
80km/h
80km/h
Conductor area, basic

configuration, copper
equivalent
342 mm
1300 mm
Sectioning
Overlap or section
insulator
Overlap or section insulator

built into the beam.
Clearance to tunnel crown
above beam would need
consideration
Clearances
100mm static and passing
100mm static and passing
Tertiary insulation if
needed
Built into supports with

70mm double insulated
bond wire to spark gap
Built into supports with

70mm double insulated
bond wire to spark gap
Number of supports
35 m spacing
12 m spacing
Maintenance availability
Same material as above

ground
New range of fittings

inventory. New tooling
Contact wire
Solid 161mm
Solid 129mm maximum.

161mm may be too big for
Furrer+Frey system.
Not required for Siemens
system.
Copper is relatively stable.

Insulators and other
support fittings may need
shielding in wet areas
Furrer+Frey system.
Aluminium would corrode
with salts and concrete
wash from roof. Requires
Electrical interface
Cost interface
Corrosion interface
In particular corrosion to
minerals in a solution
expected to be found in
the ground water
94
Element /
considerations
Catenary / contact
percolating into a tunnel

environment
Conductor beam
plastic shield above beam.
Copper contact wire and
aluminium beam require
greasing on installation to
mitigate bi-metal corrosion.
Drainage holes are
provided in F+F beam to
remove condensation which
may ultimately form an
electrolytic solution
Risk interface
Contact wire burn through
Possible at feeding
overlaps but can be
mitigated
Unlikely to happen because

of the configuration of the
overlaps
Rip down of equipment

due to faulty pantograph
Possible
Unlikely
Table 5: Tunnels. Comparison between catenary and conductor beam systems
9.3.6 Stabling
Overhead in stabling yards should match the mainline. That is, the system should be a fully
weight regulated catenary and contact but at lower tensions to accommodate large radial
loads.
There is a potential option of designing a trolley system for stabling roads. Although this is
not in use on the current electrified system, this would require development, risk analysis
and type approval from MTM.
95
10. Railway Communication

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)
The requirements for ICT communications systems of the stations would be designed to
meet the future requirements of the DOT Control and Information Systems (CIS) Strategy.
The station ICT requirement would focus on the following CIS applications:
Passenger/Staff Safety
Station CCTV
Car park CCTV
Emergency help point
Tunnel CCTV
Tunnel emergency phone
Tunnel radio coverage
Passenger Information System (PIS)
Passenger information display
Public Address (PA) announcement
Train arrival PA announcement
Train running information help point
Control of the Train Network
Train radio communications
Station Operation
Station security
Station voice service (phone)
Station data service (workstation)
Integrated Transport Management
Systems have information sharing and networking capability
The station ICT systems that support the CIS are as follows:
Digital CCTV video surveillance system

Passenger information display system (PIDS)
Public Address (PA) announcement system
Customer help points (CHP)
Station clocks
Radio system
PABX telephone system
LAN data network
96
Access control system

Security alarm system
Communications equipment room (CER) facilities
Telecommunication cabling
The main station ICT systems are represented on the Station ICT IP System Overview
diagram (Figure 24).
The cost allowances for these ICT systems are shown in Table 6.
Service
Stations
Tunnels
Trackside
METROL
S.C.R.
ELECTROL
Mtce Rm
Emergency Control Room
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
47,080,000
34,978,000
1,400,000
1,990,000
2,460,000
1,990,000
2,590,000
9,840,000
Notes
4 stations car parking only at Huntingdale and Rowville
2 tunnels, 6.4km ea
New FOC run on above ground sections
expand existing
Option - A new Security control room
expand existing
A new maintenance room
Emergency Control Room located at each station
Total ICT Cost
$ 102,328,000
Include design and construct
Table 6: Cost Allowance for ITC Systems
97
Figure 24:Station ICT IP System Overview
98
11. Constructability
11.1
Project Timeline
The high level delivery schedule provided in Appendix D is based on a final alignment
comprising a mix of at grade, elevated and underground sections. Underground sections
are assumed in cut and cover which provides the best mix of risk, cost and production rates
for underground sections of the construction. Further detail in relation to this view are
provided in the next section of this Constructability Review.
Exchanging a cut and cover tunnel technique for bored tunnel would be expected to
increase this program duration by a minimum of 12 months, due to the lead time in procuring
and commissioning tunnel boring machines. Similarly any excavated bored tunnel would
also have impacts on the overall duration of delivery.
Taking into consideration further project feasibility and options assessment, stakeholder and
industry consultation and a commercial tender period, followed by contractor detailed design
development, etc. best case for construction commencement is early to mid 2016 with
construction then taking a little over 4 years including an allowance for integrated systems
testing and commissioning (ie. completion early 2020).
It is noted that there is opportunity to consider a phased commissioning with a partial
completion and handover of the corridor at say Monash Station. Such an approach would
require a terminating track arrangement to be built into the configuration at this location.
This alternative has not been considered at this feasibility stage assessment.
11.2
Noise and vibration impacts
The table top geotechnical investigation completed along the alignment indicates the
western end of the alignment from Huntingdale station for the first 9 km through to
Dandenong Creek (which covers 2 sections of tunnel construction and one section of
elevated structure) is expected to be predominantly Tertiary Brighton Group soils comprising
sandy clays and clayey sands. To the east of Dandenong Creek for approximately 2km,
residual soils overlying inter-bedded silt and sandstones are anticipated.
The likelihood of vibration transmission either during construction works, or during
subsequent operation of the train line are likely to be more significant in the harder siltstone
sandstone materials to the East of Dandenong Creek due to the harder nature of these
materials.
A detailed analysis of the vibration transmission characteristics of each geotechnical medium
against the different structural designs (ie. tunnel type, elevated structure, at grade track,
etc.) is unlikely to establish definitive results as to the possible effects of vibration within the
corridor, however a risk assessment undertaken where known sensitive buildings and or
stakeholders assets are identified would enable key areas of interest to be pinpointed so that
99
attenuation responses could be factored into the design development and construction
methodologies when working over or near these locations. For example, pier footings for
elevated structure over rock could be founded on pad footings so not to extend into the
underlying rock material. Various train vibration dampening options are also available and
able to be selectively allowed for in the track structure design. Further discussion on
controlling noise and vibration is included in section 7.0 Civils Structures Required.
11.3
Temporary access Shafts
11.3.1 Cut and Cover Tunnel

There are various options available for temporary access to cut and cover construction
works along the route with the preferred locations being to use either tunnel portals
(provided sufficient work and storage areas and workable road interface is available), or
otherwise access pits where required along the route.
The area to the south side of North Road at approximately 18.600km (in the middle of the
ramp loops) could provide a viable access site for materials management in and out of the
tunnel for the majority of tunnelling works between Huntingdale Station and the Portal at
21.250km. If this access location is to be used, agreement would need to be reached with
MTM for extended closure of the car park, and the associated Council for either closure to or
changed traffic conditions at the Huntingdale/North Road ramps.
For the remaining sections of tunnel construction, tunnel portals would be used for
management of materials for the tunnel section at Waverley Park, and the tunnel portal for
the tunnel through to Rowville Station.
In addition, cut and cover tunnel provides the flexibility of creating access points at any
location along the route by leaving out a section of soffit roof slab for later completion.
11.3.2 Road Header Tunnel

The section of tunnel into Rowville Station may be founded in sufficiently hard rock to enable
mined tunnel using a road header. The tunnel portal location at 30.200km would be used
exclusively as access for this purpose.
11.3.3 TBM Tunnel

A pit is generally required to launch the TBM at working depth. The greater depth of TBM
tunnel provides fewer options for launch pit along the route which as a consequence may
drive the use of a station pit for this purpose.
It is noted that if a station pit is used for this purpose, it typically places the station
construction on a critical program path, as well as making the station construction staging
more complex to facilitate the tunnel construction works.
100
If TBM tunnel approach was to be used a deeper route alignment would likely be required to
provide sufficient surface settlement resistance. Deeper tunnel would also result longer and
more continuous tunnel. Alternative vertical alignments for TBM tunnel beneath
Blackburn/Springvale Roads and Jacksons Road are shown on the alignment long section.
Under this scenario, temporary access for TBM launch, and materials management in and
out of the tunnel would likely be required at a number of stations along the route. Also,
deeper tunnel would result in deeper stations, which introduces further choice of station
construction approach, which may further constrain the ability to access the tunnel for the
TBM works.
Ideally, a single access point for each TBM tunnel section is preferred with the completion
point tied into a portal so the TBM can be extracted more efficiently at ground level. This
would see either Huntingdale station pit, or the Monash station pit being used to launch the
TBM for the western tunnel section, with an option of a temporary pit to the south side of
North Road at approximately 18.600km (in the middle of the ramp loops) also being
suggested as a viable location in lieu of Huntingdale station. Waverley and Rowville stations
would likely be used to launch the TBM for the central and eastern tunnel sections provided
open pit construction is viable for the resultant station depth.
11.4
Construction Method
11.4.1 Overall Alignment Considerations

Various constraints such as designated route, station locations, road crossings, and other
stakeholder requirements have driven the selection of structural solutions based on the
position of the route vertical alignment. This has resulted in limited options for structural
approach at some locations (e.g. down the centre of North and Wellington Roads).
Notwithstanding, the concept alignment has been developed with the goal of minimising
construction costs through an optimised mix of elevated structure, cut and cover tunnel and
bored/mined tunnel solutions, whilst also ensuring that station depths are not too deep to
enable cut and cover approach to station construction.
11.4.2 Station areas

Huntingdale, Monash, Waverley and Rowville would be below ground stations with depths
set to enable cut and cover station construction technique. Mulgrave is would be an above
ground station which would be elevated in conjunction with the elevated route structure at
this location.
Cut and Cover Stations
For underground stations, cut and cover construction technique is generally cheaper and
easier that the alternatives of cavern or tunnelling construction approaches which would be
required for deeper station depths. In addition, deeper stations result in increased operating
costs due to ventilation requirements and greater vertical transport infrastructure costs.
101
Deeper stations also result in greater commuter travel times between ground and platform
levels.
Regardless of the stations depth and construction approach, there would be a significant
interface with the tunnel construction works which would require formal consideration with
respect to staging of the works. This interface can be minimised by avoiding the need to use
the station pits as access points for the tunnel construction works.
In the event that a station pit is required for access to tunnelling works, the associated
station construction is likely to be pushed onto the program critical path. The preference is
to avoid this if possible through use of other temporary pit locations, or otherwise the tunnel
portal locations for materials, plant and personnel access into and out of the tunnels. It is
noted that if TBM tunnel boring technique is used, one or more station pits would almost
certainly be used.
The underground station footprints allows for centre platforms. A centre platform would
require the lead in tunnel alignment in cut and cover tunnel to be widened as well, while
bored tunnel would already be set at the required separation. The two underground stations
(and lead in tunnels) on North and Wellington Road would extend well beyond the centre
median under the existing road alignment which would require extended road closures
during wall and roof construction works. To minimise the impact of the station construction
works, a top down construction technique is preferred for the station pits.
The desktop geotechnical study shows that the majority of the station pits (with exception of
Rowville Station) would be in clays and sands, and that this would be the worst case for pile
embedment. In the permanent condition the Station walls would be braced by the soffit/roof,
concourse floor and track invert slabs. The design also assumes permanent ground water
table at 5m depth (this would have a significant effect on design).
The confined sites for the various underground stations largely precludes construction in
open cut. Additionally, the high water table would require water proof tunnel walls. Either an
in-situ reinforced diaphragm wall constructed under bentonite slurry or a secant pile walls
could be used to achieve this. Secant pile walls are seen as offering the best option given
the confined space and the capacity to install piles within trafficked roads under short lane or
road closures.
Secant pile walls can be constructed as a hard-soft pile walls or continuous hard pile walls.
In hard-soft secant walls the male piles, hard reinforced concrete, cut secants into the
female piles (soft piles, grout/bentonite mix). The hard-soft technique is seen as appropriate
for this project as the piles can be constructed using continuous flight auger (CFA)
techniques. CFA construction allows the use of construction plant common in Australia and
would minimize construction duration.
Station pit construction could be completed bottom up with cantilevered, propped and/or tied
back pile walls or top down, however top down construction offers the most appropriate
102
solution for the project. The principle advantages, of top down over bottom up construction,
are:
Return of the roads and tunnel cover to finished conditions in the shortest time.
Minimises disruption to the public and adverse effects on the amenity adjoining
properties.
Minimises of the need for props and or temporary anchors to the wall
Minimisation of wall deflections and hence ground movement effects on adjoining
structures and services.
Minimisation of ground water draw down and hence settlement in nearby soils.
In addition to side and end wall secant piling, a series of either permanent or temporary roof
slab support piles would also be required closer to the centre of the station pit. Specifics of
the depth and placement of these needs to take into consideration the overall staging of the
station such that appropriate soffit / roof and concourse floor slab support are maintained
throughout.
The station wall piling and Soffit roof slab would be constructed one side at a time to avoid
lane closures to both traffic directions. The piling works at road level would be performed in
off peak traffic periods with pile holes and piles covered with road plates where installed in
existing road lanes when opened to traffic. Minor speed restrictions would also be applied.
Piles would be finished nominally 1.5 to 1.8 metres below road surface to allow sufficient
depth for services relocations and new future services.
Once all piles are completed, off peak lane closures would again be used to drive sheet
piling behind the pile wall to support the road lane adjacent during the excavation and
installation of a partial soffit/roof slab over the sections of the station box that lie under road
traffic lanes.
Once the partial roof slabs are in place and lanes returned to traffic, excavation of the
platform station pit would take place through the centre gap in the roof slab with the adjacent
lanes returned to normal traffic operations. The remainder of the station construction would
occur progressively with excavation being completed on a level by level basis.
The total depth of piles would need to be 8 to 10 metres deeper than the rail level through
the station, or a total depth of 20m plus.
The wall piling would require concourse floor slab and track invert slab support
arrangements to be built in at the required height. This is achieved through use of plastic
blockouts in the piles which are removed once excavation is complete, reinforcing bars are
then bent out to act as starter bars for the slabs, alternatively reinforcement couplers can be
used. The concourse floor slab and track invert slab also act as strutting support for the side
walls.
103
The concourse floor slab would be built in segments to facilitate access to the lower platform
levels for excavation and construction works to be completed.
The platform level would then be excavated to full depth with track invert slab and platform
then constructed from the bottom up including any required track and platform structure
support arrangements. Concourse floor and soffit/roof slabs would then be completed
followed by station mechanical and electrical fit-out, services, etc.
Huntingdale and Rowville Stations would also be cut and cover using secant piling for the
station box walls. Location constraints in both cases are however different to the station pits
through North and Wellington Roads.
With Rowville Station being situated under the shopping centre carpark, piling and soffit slab
construction should be significantly less constrained, allowing for an simpler approach to
construction staging. Otherwise approach to construction would be identical to the North
and Wellington Road Stations.
At Huntingdale, new station platforms under the existing above ground platform introduces
significant complexities. It is anticipated that temporary closure of the existing station would
be required in conjunction with temporary realignment of one or both tracks through the
station to enable demolition of the existing platform to make way for a new multi level railway
station with below and above ground platforms. Further consideration is given to the
operational impacts at Huntingdale under Section 11.8.
The overall approach to station pit construction at Huntingdale would be very similar to that
in the North / Wellington Rd Median with the exception that railway tracks are being diverted
and supported while the wall piling and roof slabs for the below ground platform are
constructed.
One concept for staging the construction of Huntingdale Station is as follows, with new
platforms being located beneath existing. The station would be closed to passengers with a
temporary realignment of the Down to the North side of the station in the station car park
area sufficiently clear to provide safe working area. This would require a series of temporary
overhead structures, and movement of signalling infrastructure, etc. It is likely to require land
acquisition outside of the existing VicTrack boundary.
The new Down side platform would then be constructed with a temporary piled wall down the
centre of the station to support the Up track which also continues to operate. Once the sofit /
roof slab over the Down side (below ground) platform is complete, the Up track could then
be moved to the Down side of the station to enable the Up side of the station, below and
above ground to be constructed.
Elevated Station
Side platforms are shown for Mulgrave station. The associated platforms, stairs, ramps and
lifts would be constructed following construction of track structure. It is assumed that starter
reinforcement would be provided via blockouts in the precast pier and viaduct structures for
104
this purpose with the respective station structures then built from ground up and tied into the
piers and viaduct structures as required.
Station Services
Installation of station services are generally delayed until completion of the main station
construction and also in the event station pits are continuing to be used as servicing points
for tunnelling works.
Once the station structural works are completed and released, the services fit-out, including
station transport infrastructure, lighting and electrical, water and fire services, ventilation
systems, etc. are able to be installed. Ducting for services routes would be built into the
structural members of the station build to facilitate services and equipment installations when
they occur.
11.4.3 Below Ground Alignment

The alignment options contemplate tunnel structure between:
the new Dandenong line connection at Huntingdale and east of the Monash station
beneath the Waverley Park area of Wellington Road
beneath Stud Road into Rowville station.
The Stud Road tunnel would be either a short length crossing Stud Road (the Golf Course
North approach) or a longer tunnel running along Stud Road (the Wellington Road
approach).
Cut and Cover Tunnel Construction
All tunnel sections are considered shallow enough to utilise cut and cover tunnel
construction techniques with a maximum viable depth to invert slab from ground level of
approximately 20 metres. It is noted that typically the tunnel depth is less than 15 metres,
with the average closer to 12 metres.
Notwithstanding the alignment could be lowered sufficiently to enable boring tunnel
technique, in which case the approach detailed in the next section would become applicable.
Figure 2 provides an indicative cross section for cut and cover tunnel.
From a construction perspective, this design provides a significant flexibility in approach.
This is particularly important for the alignment down the centre of North and Wellington
Roads which provides only a narrow area between the western and eastern traffic lanes.
With the requirement to work between operating traffic, there is an expectation that lane
closures would be required on both sides of the construction works for periods of time. The
goal in construction would be to minimise such lane closures, and traffic management costs
during the construction.
As with the station pits, the desktop geotechnical study shows that much of the alignment is
in clays and sands which is the worst case for pile embedment. The design for budget
105
purposes assumes 12m effectively retained to the underside of the base slab. In the
permanent condition the tunnel walls would be braced by the soffit and invert slabs. The
design also assumes permanent ground water table at 5m depth (this would have a
significant effect on design).
As with the station pits, hard-soft secant piling technique with top down construction is seen
as appropriate for this project (see section 11.4.2 Cut and Cover Station Cover for further
details).
The construction would proceed on a section by section basis (say from cross street to cross
street). Following completion of any required services diversions, one side wall would be
constructed first followed by centre piles then the second side wall. This would enable single
lane occupations one side at a time. Piles and pile holes would be protected by road plates
when returning lanes to traffic. Minor speed restrictions would also be applied. Piles would
be completed nominally 1.5 to 1.8 metres below road surface to allow sufficient depth for any
delayed services relocations and new future services installations.
Once a section of wall and centre piles are complete, extended closures would be used to
excavate and cast soffit slab and apply waterproof membrane. Additional sheet piling would
be driven in behind the pile wall acting as a cantilever to support the road lane adjacent.
The design provides the flexibility for this to be completed either full width (lane closures
both sides), or in 2 halves (one side lane closures).
The soffit slab could be installed, either as pre cast sections, or poured in situ. Poured insitu, is preferred. A surface blinding layer of low strength concrete and bond breaker would
be installed before soffit slab casting for later removal during tunnel excavation.
As each section of tunnel is complete, it is released to the underground excavation crews
working from the main access point. Excavation would be completed using bucket wheel
excavator typically extracting spoil via a conveyor system that would transport the loose spoil
to the access point. The conveyor system would be hung on one of the tunnel walls to keep
it clear of other tunnel activities. Depending on productivity requirements, the direction of
construction can be split using multiple access points
To improve excavation material management, a tower surge bin would be used to receive
spoil and load semi trailers for transfer to either spoil management sites, or direct to tip sites.
It is noted that if night time excavation is required to achieve program outcomes,
arrangements for a 24 hour tip site would be required, or alternatively a transfer spoil site
would be required if stock pile facilities at the extraction points are insufficient.
Tunnel drainage, invert slabs and centre walls can be constructed as soon as sufficient
excavation has been completed to provide an unhindered work front. The same conveyor
system used to remove the excavated material would also be used to transport aggregates
and concrete into the tunnel (ie, top conveyor run for materials in and bottom conveyor run
for materials out). Drainage pipes, reinforcement and centre wall materials would be brought
in using small trucks.
106
Crossings to Clayton Road and the Princess Highway could be constructed using a number
of options, however the simplest approach is believed to be a continuation of the cut and
cover approach. Secant Piling works would be completed in night time and weekend
closures of individual lanes of these roads with piles and pile holes covered with road plates
when the lanes are returned to normal traffic. Weekend lane closures would be used to
excavate and install tunnel soffit slab and waterproof membrane and then resurface the road
and return to traffic. Under slab excavation can then be tied into the overall under slab
excavation program.
An alternative approach could be to jack in a precast structure, however this introduces a
different work method which needs to be dovetailed into the more typical piling and roof slab
approach and overall is believed to introduce greater complexity and risk into the
construction process.
Portal locations in cut and cover are easily finished with the soffit slab finishing at the point
that the tunnel roof level raises above natural ground level. At this point, the side walls then
continue as cantilevered piles until either the associated ground material is able to be
battered sufficiently to self support, or otherwise less expensive retaining structure can
replace the cantilever pile wall. Some level of aesthetic surface finish would likely be
required at this location. Finally when the tunnel invert slab rises to match natural ground
level, ballasted track structure is resumed. At this location a transition slab is required
between slab and ballasted track for the associated change in track stiffness.
Indicative unit costs for completed cut and cover tunnel based on the current concept using
secant piling technique for the walls is $75 million per kilometre including centre wall and
invert slab. Additional allowance would need to be made for drainage, services and track
construction which are assumed common for the three tunnelling options considered here.
Construction rates for cut and cover tunnel are estimated at approximately 120 days per
kilometre of completed tunnel. Piling works are critical in this rate being based on 7 rigs
working dayshift only on the assumption that double shifting into night periods would not be
acceptable to EPA and relevant stakeholders.
All other tasks follow behind the piling works at a suitable lag with production rates generally
able to match or exceed the piling works, hence not adding to the overall production
estimate. Road crossings would be completed independent of the main tunnel work front,
sufficiently in advance to tie the main tunnel works and crossings together so that the
excavation can advance on a continuous basis.
Productivity of 120 days per km equates to approximately 8 metres per day of completed
tunnel. The program in Section 1 is based on 7 metres per day to completed invert slab. It
should be noted that cut and cover tunnelling provides a great deal of flexibility allowing
productivity to be incrementally ramped up and down by varying the number of piling rigs
used, and can also be worked on multiple fronts with multiple teams.
107
Upfront approvals, design, mobilisation for Cut and Cover are conservatively based at
between 14 and 18 months from award of contract.
TBM Tunnel Construction
A deeper vertical alignment would generally be required to contemplate a TBM tunnel
design. John Holland Tunnelling has provided a detailed report on TBM tunnelling options
(refer Appendix E). In summary, John Holland has assessed the most likely TBM tunnelling
technology for soft ground conditions to include EPB technology and Slurry. The report
details the specifics of operations for each of these machine types, as well as providing an
overview of other TBM technologies including double shield gripper and mixed face TBM
machines.
All TBM types require a base location to firstly launch the machine from, and then to manage
materials (spoil out and construction materials in). Typical site layouts and launch box
layouts for EPB and Slurry Machines are provided within Appendix E.
Portals in TBM tunnel are typically constructed through use of canopy tube arches
constructed in advance of TBM completion. The arches are constructed, with surrounding
finishes to the portal face constructed in either in situ or precast facing anchored into the
ground behind. As with Cut and Cover Tunnel, a cantilever pile wall could then be used to
continue side walls until the track alignment is sufficiently raised to match into normal ground
level. Cosmetic finishes would be required at the transition points.
TBM completion or breakout requires a stabilised ground area, A canopy tube arch is a
common approach to this for softer ground conditions. Beyond the Portal location,
cantilevered piling or other common ground support mechanism could be used for the
cutting faces leading to at grade track.
Cross tunnels are assumed at 250 metre spacing, and would be constructed in open air
effectively following completion of the TBM lining installation.
John Holland have provided indicative direct costs for TBM purchase setup and launch and
operation. These costs are summarised in Table 7 and Table 8.
Per EPB Machine
TBM Purchase
$21,000,000
$22,000,000
TBM Mobilisation to site
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
TBM Setup Site

Establishment
$2,500,000
$2,750,000
TBM Assembly
$2,000,000
$2,250,000
TBM Launch
$1,000,000
$1,250,000
$28,000,000
$29,750,000
Total Capital Outlay
Per Slurry Machine
Table 7: Purchase, Setup and Launch Costs (Upfront Costs Only)
108
Comments
Amortised Upfront
Costs (per km)
based on 6km twin bore

tunnel
Segmental Lining
Cost (per km)
Slurry Machine
$9,333,333
$9,916,666
twin bore tunnel
$14,000,000
$14,000,000
Boring Cost (per km)
twin bore tunnel
$13,000,000
$13,500,000
Cross Tunnel
Construction (per km)
assumed 4 per km of twin

bore tunnel
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
Tunnel Invert Slab

(per km)
Cost assumed based on

developed pricing for Cut
and Cover Tunnel works.
Total Direct cost

(per km)
EPB Machine
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$43,833,333
$44,916,666
Table 8: TBM Direct Purchase, Setup and Launch Costs Only
The direct costs in Table 7 and Table 8 have been based on an approximate extent of bored
tunnel of 6km, which is based on the current indicative design alignment. Any variations
from this length would result in some minor impact to the per km rate due to change in
spread of the upfront costs for purchase, setup and launch. Impacts to the construction rate
based on a significantly longer tunnel are suggested as being minor (less than $100k per km
reduction), with the key impact being mainly due to the greater spread of the upfront costs.
The above costs are direct and exclude any allowance or overhead or margin. Suggested
sell costs can typically be in the order of two times the direct job costs.
Additional allowance needs to be made for drainage, services and track construction which
are assumed common for the three tunnelling options considered here.
Typical TBM production is 65 metres per week based on 11 x 10 hour shifts (ie. double
shifted which are assumed acceptable due to the underground nature of the works). This is
an average of 6 metres per shift, which is marginally less than the daily or shift rate for cut
and cover tunnel.
The upfront program impacts for a TBM tunnel are significantly greater than a cut and cover
tunnel solution with design, approvals, manufacture, mobilisation, setup, etc. taking typically
between 2.5 and 3 years from contract award. This upfront duration would have significant
impacts on the achievable completion date for the Rowville Rail Corridor.
Excavated Tunnel Construction
The section of alignment to the East between Dandenong Creek and Rowville Station is
expected to be through residual soils overlying inter-bedded silt and sandstones are
anticipated. Depending on the combination of tunnel depth, and the extent and hardness of
the underlying silt and sandstone, tunnel construction in this region could be undertaken
using manual excavation techniques with excavators and road headers.
Portals in Road Header bored tunnel as with TBM tunnel can be constructed with a canopy
tube arch, however unlike the TBM tunnel, the tunnel boring would likely commence at the
109
portal location with canopy tubes being installed prior to the commencement of tunnel
boring. Requirements for ground support outside the portal would be dealt with in the same
way as for TBM tunnel (refer section above on TBM tunnelling).
Either a single arch tunnel or dual arch tunnels could be contemplated, however to minimise
plant and equipment requirements, a single double track arch cross section is likely to
produce greater economies of scale, allowing for larger excavation plant to be used and a
single conveyor system for spoil disposal and materials supply.
The most significant issues associated with excavated tunnel construction are the
consistency of the bored material, and management of water when below the water table.
Based on the current Geotechnical advice, the silt and sandstones are expected to have
significant weathering and fracturing providing multiple paths for water movement. The
typical technique used to control water in such material is injection grouting, which is
inherently unreliable when trying to perform in the face of running water during the
excavation process. The alternative more effective approach is to pre grout the ground
surrounding the tunnel in advance of the tunnel excavation. This approach would still leave
areas of water ingress requiring management. During excavation, any water is then
managed using local piping to provide a dry surface for tunnel lining works. Even with pre
grouting, areas under the water table are expected to require a water proofing membrane.
Following completion of the arch and wall lining, the invert slab can be constructed. The
base of the wall membrane is then tied into the invert slab which is also waterproofed with
the goal of providing a complete 100% water tight seal. Nonetheless, the tunnel drainage
system is also designed to pick up any water that does get through the final seal.
Costs for a single double track arch tunnel including waterproofing, shotcrete lining and
invert slab are assumed similar to those for TBM bored tunnel, however depending on the
extent of grouting, and the final water proof membrane and lining requirements, the costs
could increase significantly, and may even result in greater costs than for TBM tunnel.
Additional allowance needs to be made for drainage, services and track construction which
are assumed common for the three tunnelling options considered here.
Productivity for excavated bored tunnel is assumed similar to that for TBM Tunnel, however
risks associated with soft ground stabilisation have the ability to severely impact productivity.
Up front design, approvals, setup, etc. are assumed similar to cut and cover tunnel, as there
is no TBM to be manufactured.
Comparison of Tunnelling Approaches
The cost of cut and cover tunnelling construction in combination with the flexibility it provides
in alignment design (ie. allows for much shallower tunnel construction compared to TBM or
excavated bored tunnel) means that cut and cover tunnel provides a much lower risk
approach to tunnelling than either of the alternatives. When this perspective is combined
with the unit cost, the ability to vary/ increase production through either or both varying the
number of piling rigs used, or the number of work fronts worked supports an initial view that
110
cut and cover tunnelling technique provides the best overall cost and risk outcome for the
construction of any below ground alignment for the Rowville railway corridor. Consequently,
the program presented in Section 1 is based on a cut and cover approach.
Tunnel Services
Installation of water, fire, HV and LV electrical and lighting, signalling and communications
services routes through the tunnel can commence immediately following construction and
cure of the floor slab in both cut and cover or bored tunnel constructions. Placement of the
main services racks should be such that it will not clash with spoil conveyor or pipe systems,
thus enabling unimpeded services installations.
Ideally the main services conduits and pipes should be installed in advance of track
construction works to enable the tunnel to be clear behind the track construction (refer
section 2.3.5) for signalling system connections, overhead traction contact wire installation
(from elevated platforms operating on the completed trackworks) and negative return
connections to the track.
Confined Space Considerations
It is noted that all construction works within the tunnel would need to be managed as works
within a confined space with air quality management being critical to ensuring the safety of
workforce and visitors to the tunnel construction area.
A risk based approach should be used to manage air quality within the tunnel with
mitigations applied accordingly to ensure that every person who works on or visits the site
during the works is not exposed to undue risk to their health or lives. Pollutants, or causes
or pollutants should be considered separately to assess their specific risk profiles, with
specific and general controls being applied methodically to ensure that residual risks are
reduced to levels as low as reasonably practical, and such that all relevant standards for air
quality are achieved during the performance of any works on the site.
Key pollutants to the air anticipated within the tunnel and through various other parts of the
site include:
Excavation Plant diesel exhaust this product typically contains carcinogens and
poses a high risk to workers within the tunnel. All vehicles and plant used within the
tunnel to be fitted with catalytic scrubbers to remove carcinogenic components, thus
able to reduce exposure consequence.
Dust from bulk excavation activities generally considered a low risk as expected to
be largely saturated with water already which will keep air bourn particles to a minimum.
In addition, additional watering can be undertaken as required.
Dust from rock breaking and removal this component of air born particles when in
sandstone could introduce silica particles into the air, This risk can be reduced through
reduction of the likelihood of exposure through use of water during breaking and
excavation tasks.
In a normal outdoors site, these above risks are generally easily managed through basic
PPE (masks, etc.), and use of watering mediums such as carts, boom sprays, etc. However
111
with the introduction of a confined space, significant additional controls would be required. A
number of controls may be applicable including but not limited to:
Respiratory PPE - All personnel who are required to work within or visit the tunnel are
required to carry appropriate respiratory PPE.
Air quality monitoring undertaken on a continuous basis at various points through the
tunnel and wherever people are working. Minimum quality standards to be set and if
breached, either all works stopped and people evacuated, or otherwise approved
respiratory gear must be worn by any person remaining in the tunnel.
Vacuum / exhaust systems used at any work face where dust is being generated, with
local extraction and dispersion to locations clear of the tunnel.
Wind force fans used in a synchronised manner at tunnel access points. Air would
typically be forced into the tunnel such that exhaust fumes can be firstly dispersed and
diluted to acceptable levels, and then removed as quickly as possible. The fans can
also be used to aid strong prevailing winds when they occur to improve cycling airflow
into and through the tunnel. The third way the fans can be used is to support the work
face within the tunnel, such that extracted dust and pollutants can be moved away from
the work face as quickly as possible, to a point where they can be captured removed
from the tunnel using vacuum exhaust systems.
11.4.4 Viaducts
Viaduct sections would be built using standard construction techniques which lend
themselves to working within limited footprints like those through the Wellington Road
alignment.
Substructure
Piles would be constructed with piling rigs. Pile caps would be cast in-situ, followed by
installation of precast pier and cross beams. The piers would be constructed from pre cast
segments stacked vertically and pre-stressed downwards from the pier crosshead level, to
the level of the pile cap for the foundations. Pre-stressing would be achieved with the use of
high tensile steel bars, inserted into steel ducts cast into the concrete columns.
Superstructure
The Superstructure would be assembled via launch trusses (using either under slung or
overhead gantries) to install the segmental precast beam sections. The structure should be
heavy enough to enable installation of cast in tensioning ducts, however stressing tendons
could also be located on the inside wall of the hollow interior of the precast viaduct segments
which would increase accuracy and ease of inspection and enable lighter weight concrete
spans.
Indicative unit costs for completed viaduct structure based on the concept design is $5,000
per m2 of deck area. Based on an assumed deck width of 10 metres, that is approximately
$50 million per kilometre including substructure and superstructure.
112
Overhead Structures and Walkways

Provision for erection of overhead structures are assumed made in the base viaduct
structures with either block-outs with contained starter bar or alternatively rag bolts cast in
for easy erection of these structures. Maintenance Walkways would either be designed as
part of the viaduct structure, which would result in a somewhat more bulky and expensive
casting, or alternatively, so that this can be installed as part of the overhead structure
arrangement in steel. It is believed that this second option would provide a more cost
effective outcome with better aesthetics able to be achieved due to the lighter weight and
more streamlined viaduct structure, however this would need to be balanced by the design
requirements to limit noise and vibration.
11.4.5 Railway Infrastructure (Tracks, Power and Signalling)

The final stage of the construction works through tunnels and stations would be the track,
signalling and traction supply service installations. Conduit routes for signalling and
electrical traction supply should be installed with the main tunnel services racks and conduits
in advance of the final track and track services installations. Track for the Rowville line is
assumed to be slab construction. Bottom up track slab construction is preferred as it
provides improved tolerances in construction, and is generally quicker than top down
techniques.
A track slab is constructed and levelled on top of the Invert Slab with reinforcement set using
templates to provide spaces for bolt holes. Following slab cure, a separate team come
through and bore and set ferules and rail plates to survey position. Rail plates provide
additional adjustment to ensure tolerances are achieved.
During track slab construction, local conduits for signalling and negative traction return
cabling can be allowed within the slab to minimise the extent of any exposed local cabling
through the corridor.
Following through behind the track slab construction, signalling circuits, bonding and
trackside signalling apparatus would be installed and connected in parallel with overhead
traction system installations.
A number of options are available for overhead catenary and contact wire. In cut and cover
tunnel, mounting points for the overhead traction system can either be mechanically or
chemically fastened directly to the underside of the soffit slab, or side braced between tunnel
wall and centre wall piles, depending on clearance allowances in the tunnel height. Bored
tunnel is a little more problematic. Typically a chemical bonding approach for traction
system mounting is preferred to maintain the structural integrity of the tunnel lining.
11.5
Work Sites
The horizontal alignment runs from the Down side of Huntingdale Station, out under North
Road, then traverses the on and off ramps to North Road before swinging back under the
West bound lane to the centre median of North Road. From here it progresses down the
113
centre of North and Wellington Roads until just east of the Garnet Road intersection to
Wellington Road. From this point, there are 3 options for the remainder of the alignment to
Rowville:
The Golf Course North option turns to the north across the south side of the Dandenong
Creek wetlands area, crosses Eastlink, wraps around the North side of Kingston Links
Golf Course, then turns south east adjacent to the Stamford Estate development site,
finally crossing Stud Road into Rowville station where it terminates beneath the Stud
Park shopping centre.
The Golf Course South option runs further south than the option above, wrapping
around the south side of the golf course, and along the north side of the Wellington Rd
industrial estate before turning north up Stud Road to terminate beneath the Stud Park
shopping centre.
The Wellington Road option continues along Wellington Road, then turns north into Stud
Road before also terminating beneath Stud Park.
Representatives of Monash and Knox city Councils at a Constructability review on 9

September 2011 were queried about viable work sites able to be used for equipment
storage, and spoil management tasks. They advised a number of possible sites along the
alignments. Specifics of these sites are detailed below, and also shown in Figure 25.
1) The land to the North side of the existing Huntingdale Station owned by Victrack
(approx 7,000m2) and possibly also the existing commuter carpark next to it
(approx 6,000m2). This land (and carpark) are the logical place to construct the
new underground station platforms from at Huntingdale, if a design can be made to
fit. Otherwise, it is a premium site for equipment and materials storage and
management.
1) Huntingdale North Road on and off ramps and the existing commuter carpark at
the centre of the ramp loops (approximately 4,000m2). With tunnel alignment
passing directly under this carpark area, it makes an ideal place to access the
tunnel works for spoil removal, materials supply and equipment access. If a bored
tunnel, it could also provide an ideal place to launch a TBM if this method of tunnel
construction was chosen.
2) Monash University lands to the North East side of the Wellington Blackburn Roads
intersection. Council believe that there are sections of land not currently used by
Monash University and that some arrangement may be able to be made to use
some of this. This would make a viable central site in particular for spoil and
material management.
3) Private land to North East side of Nanbilla and Wellington Roads intersection
Investigation required to ascertain the owner, however site also suitable for spoil
and material management.
4) Kernot Avenue Sports Fields could possibly be considered for temporary use
followed by re establishment.
114
5) The Mirvac Subdivision site to the South of Wellington Road off Jacksons Road
could also provide a materials and spoil transfer / management site, with the added
advantage that if Mirvac are open to it, the majority of environmental protection
facilities are likely to already be in place.
6) Stamford Estate to the West side of Stud Road if available would provide a
significant site for management of the Eastern end works, and in particular for the
preferred option alignment
Figure 25: Possible Work Sites
There would no doubt be other viable locations further away from the alignment which may
also provide materials storage relief. More detailed investigations will of course be required
to establish the full viability of each of the above sites and others.
In addition to the above, the full extent of the centre median down North and Wellington
Roads, as well as the broader station footprints where they occur would be utilised at
different times during the construction process.
11.6
Traffic Management
The most prominent traffic management requirement would be that associated with cut and
cover or open cut construction works in the centre median of North and Wellington Roads,
115
and those in and around the Huntingdale, North Road on and off ramps. Of the two
construction methods, open cut would present the greater disruption because it does not
provide a platform for construction work or traffic diversions unless temporary arrangements
are made.
Generally the road corridors along North, Wellington and Stud Roads provide sufficient width
to allow management of temporary lane diversions, associated with cut and cover
construction, albeit with lane closures. The traffic management implications of construction
techniques are discussed in section 11.4.2.
Commuter parking arrangements at Huntingdale Station would require appropriate
management, and depending on the final chosen alignment into Rowville Station, there
could also be a sizable traffic management task on Stud Road in association with
construction access and modified customer parking at Rowville Shopping Centre.
Stage specific traffic management would also be required in and around crossings to major
roads (Clayton Rd, Princes Hwy, Blackburn Rd, Springvale Rd, Monash Hwy and Eastlink).
An experienced full time traffic management team should be established during the detailed
design stage to develop and negotiate traffic management plans for the project with the
respective local councils, VicRoads and ConnectEast (for EastLink). It is noted that the
traffic management for the project would require a large amount of stakeholder engagement
which would most likely require the support of either contractor or superintendents
stakeholder management representatives. Specific considerations for the various zones and
locations are further outlined below.
11.6.1 Huntingdale Station Precinct

The main access into and out of Huntingdale Station are from Railway Avenue off
Huntingdale Road (also serviced by the North Road Ramps) on the Down Side, which is also
where the majority of traffic impacts are anticipated due to use of the land and carpark on
the North side of Huntingdale Station, and possibly the land in the centre of the North Road
Ramps.
Additionally lesser impacts are anticipated on Haughton Ave on the Up Side due to access
being used to construct the Up Main tunnel portal connection.
Agreements would be required with VicTrack and MTM as to any required station car
parking areas, while agreements would be required with Monash City Council in regards to
which roads can be closed, and associated alternative traffic routes.
Traffic management plans for this area would also need to make allowance for maintenance
access to the existing Huntingdale station and buildings.
116
11.6.2 North and Wellington Roads

The majority of tunnel and elevated structure construction, as well as construction of 3
stations (1 above ground and 2 below ground) would occur along the centre median of North
and Wellington Roads. To achieve the staging of these works effectively would require a
large amount of flex and movement in the construction footprint which would require various
ongoing lane closures along the length of the works. Indications by Monash and Knox
Councils to date suggest they are not averse to short term off peak and night time lane
closures along the majority of this route, and would even accept longer term lane closures,
using the bus lanes as relief.
Generally, it is expected that the lane closures would be managed by a series of warning
signs in advance of the works to warn drivers with land mergers and closures protected with
flagmen and jersey barriers.
Detailed stage by stage traffic management plans would be required for all sections of North
and Wellington Road with lane closures fully supported by assessments of existing and
impacted traffic numbers and patterns.
11.6.3 Stud Road and Rowville Station Precinct

Loss of car parking amenity and changes to traffic paths within Stud Park shopping centre
car park, and onto Stud Road would be required. Traffic management plans would need to
be agreed with both the relevant local council and the shop owners (or their designated
representative).
Again traffic detours and lane changes would be advised through advanced signage, and
flagmen where required, with closed routes and lanes protected by jersey barriers.
11.6.4 Major Road Crossings

Based on the alignments, under road crossings would be constructed at Clayton Road, and
Princess Hwy, while over road crossings would be constructed at Blackburn Road,
Springvale Road, Monash Freeway and East Link. Regardless of construction approach,
some extent of lane or road crossings would be required to complete the works.
The under road crossings would generally require single lane closures to complete
progressive piling and slab construction works. Requirements for total road closures are not
currently anticipated, with the majority, or all works expected to be completed during off peak
traffic flow periods. Traffic management plans for these partial road closures should be
relatively straight forward to plan and agree with the respective authorities.
Over road crossings are more likely to require short duration single direction and/or full road
closures to enable beam installations over the roads. These closures would be programmed
to occur in off peak periods such as weekends and night. Alternative traffic routes and
detours would need to be agreed with the respective road authority.
117
The approach to lane closures would be the same as for North and Wellington Road lane
closures with traffic controlled with signage and flagmen, while closed lanes protected with
jersey barriers.
11.7
Maintenance Access Requirements
To the extent possible, the developed traffic management plans should consider the broader
requirement of spoil disposal across the entire project. Various controls could be applied to
minimise the impacts of trucks carrying excavated materials from site to tip:
Truck routes should be planned to use main roads with appropriate load ratings,
Entry and exit points to and from roads should be aligned to match the direction of traffic
to minimise risks and impacts to road traffic.
Truck movements should be metered through the day with the majority of movements
planned for off peak traffic periods
Transfer stockpiles used to enable shorter but more frequent truck movements from the
site, with transfer from stockpile to tip able to be spread over a longer duration
11.8
Protection of Operational Rail Infrastructure
The current alignment has a single geographical interface with the existing operating
Dandenong railway line to the Western or Up side of the existing Huntingdale Station. In
addition, there would be operating interfaces at the railway connection point and at
Huntingdale Station where new underground platforms need to be seamlessly integrated into
the station.
The railway interface would include integration of signalling, electrical, communications
systems. In addition, some allowance for temporary station facilities may also be required to
facilitate redevelopment of the existing Huntingdale Station so that the new underground
platforms are able to be properly interfaced with the existing above ground platforms.
Management of these interfaces through appropriate design development will be an
important aspect of how the construction interface is ultimately dealt with.
In the final configuration, tunnel portal structures are anticipated on both the North (Up) and
South (Down) side of the Dandenong line. The track would emerge from these portals
before connecting to the Dandenong line initially at a set of new turnouts on both
Dandenong up and Down tracks. It is understood that feasibility planning has been
undertaken to determine future direction with quadruplication of the Dandenong line. As
such, any Rowville line connection alignment should be designed to facilitate such future
quadruplication works and possible replacement of the turnout connections with crossovers.
Positioning of the tunnel portals should be such that they are sufficiently clear of the
operating Dandenong Line to enable brown field construction approach behind full
delineation fencing, without need for safeworking protection. The goal of all civil construction
works around Huntingdale Station and the Dandenong line (including all track construction
118
clear of safeworking zones, conduit and pit positioning for signalling and electrical services
routes, etc.) should similarly be to maintain separation from the live operating track at least
until the time of railway systems connections (ie, track, signalling and overhead).
At some stage late in the construction program, a number of track occupations over the
Dandenong line would be required to install final services cable routes, to reconstruct
formations and drainage and install the new turnouts, and to ultimately connect new
signalling and overhead tractions systems, followed by system testing and integration and
commissioning into operation. A mixture of night period and weekend track occupations are
expected.
All stages of construction, whether clear of operating lines, or under track occupation must
be planned to protect existing infrastructure.
Maintenance of reliable station operations at Huntingdale would also provide an interesting
challenge. Two concepts have been considered for new underground platforms. The first
involves platforms almost directly underneath the existing Huntingdale Platforms.
Constructability of any underground platforms that lie within the existing station footprint is
expected to require demolition of the existing platforms, which would subsequently require
an extended closure of Huntingdale with bussing transfers to other stations, or otherwise the
establishment of a temporary platform elsewhere. The location for a temporary platform
would be to the south side of the North Road flyover. Such temporary facilities would require
significant planning, along with several Dandenong Line railway occupations to undertake
the platform construction. Demountable buildings could then be erected on the temporary
platform, in conjunction with temporary Pedestrian crossings which may be un-gated with
signage for the temporary arrangement, however gating, or bell/ flashing light systems may
also be required. An alternative option may be temporary ramps and bridges.
Another option for the underground platforms is for them to be positioned under the existing
commuter carpark on the North side of the Dandenong Corridor at Huntingdale. We believe
a positioning is achievable clear of the existing platform and track alignments which would
enable construction of the new platforms fully clear of existing railway and station operations.
Final connections would be achieved through extension of the existing under platform
subways into the concourse area above the new underground platforms. Property
acquisition would most likely be required. Refer to Figure 26 for an illustration.
Such a design would largely remove construction interface enabling the existing station to
continue operations unaffected.
119
Existing Above
Ground Platform
Soffit Slab
Concourse Floor
Slab
Fence
Existing Subway opens to

new concourse at same
Ramp from
Concourse Level
Existing Station Subway

Existign
Carpark
Access
Existing Platform Access
Existing Street
Access
Station Pit Pile Walls

New Underground Platform and Tunnel
Figure 26: Alternative Station Design Concept Offset underground Station
11.9
Operational Requirements
During construction, it is expected that all construction areas, and supporting land areas
would require full security fencing. Similarly, all access points would require proper gate
arrangements supported by traffic control and security arrangements. Many sites within the
project (station pit locations, portal locations, etc.) would provide points of interest for
members of the public (law abiding or other). Any site that presents a higher interest risk,
including fall risk, would require special attention, for example, station construction locations
may warrant screening hoardings. The decision to implement higher standard protection
should be determined through appropriate risk based assessments by the constructing
contractor.
Of particular importance would be the station construction works at Huntingdale Station. No
doubts specific path and fencing arrangements would be required here to support ongoing
reliable operations at the station (if not closed), or temporary station if this option is taken up.
The key goal here is protection of commuters and public.
11.10 Rail, Road and Pedestrian Protection Measures

As a general rule, road and pedestrian access to any part of the site should be discouraged
through appropriate fencing and signage. Any site access locations should be gated, and
security controls such as sign on books used to ensure proper control of people into and out
of the site. In keeping with good site management practices, all construction personnel on
the site must be inducted, and carry all required tickets and certifications. Similarly any
visitors to the site must be accompanied by inducted and suitably experienced site
personnel.
120
During construction, in particular where there is road traffic interface, jersey or other
appropriate temporary crash barriers should be installed until such time as permanent
arrangements (as designed) are completed.
Permanent crash protection needs to be allowed and designed for any at risk infrastructure.
121
12. Railway Operational Safety

Tracks in open-cut adjacent to heavily trafficked roads
Heavily trafficked major roads running alongside open-cut would be of particular concern
regarding the hazard posed by a road traffic accident and/or insecure load and the risk of a
vehicle on track or load shedding onto track.
Two options for mitigating this risk are shown in Figure 27. The one relies on providing a
barrier to prevent the vehicle travelling onto the track and a space for the load shedding, the
other relies on a high-containment barrier to prevent vehicle and load travelling onto the
track.
Figure 27: Options for mitigating the risks posed by traffic running next to open cut railway
13. Operational Maintenance

Proportional to its length this portion of railway has a high proportion of open-cut /tunnel or
viaduct with comparatively little track at-grade.
The lengths of different forms of construction would depend on the alignment chosen but
typically, depending on options chosen, for this 13km length railway the lengths of different
forms of construction are in the order of viaduct 5-7km; open-cut/tunnel 5-6km; and at-grade
0.5km
Civil open cut would put a higher emphasis on effective drainage using cut-off drains and
pumping depending on the level of nearby drains. Tunnels would incorporate line-sumps
and pumps at low points. Viaducts would have conventional bridge drainage with down
pipes possibly within piers and rodding-eye access.
Access:
On-foot access would be provided to all locations. For tunnels and the viaduct the path
would be that used for emergency passenger egress.
122
Vehicle access along the length of the track is not provided for tunnels and viaduct or
open-cut: it would be a functional advantage alongside the at-grade section on the
West side on Monash Freeway where access would be required off the main highway.
Vehicle parking would be advantageous adjacent to:
emergency passenger egress / emergency services entry points for tunnel and
viaduct sections.
Traction power sub-stations
Signalling boxes where located at ground level
Access point for hi-rail vehicles
14. Developments from Previous Report

14.1
Knox City Council report Rowville Railway Pre-Feasibility Study

2004
This report will be referred to as the Knox Report.

The comments below refer to the Knox Report heavy rail options only, and also excludes the
option for heavy rail between Rowville and Glen Waverley Station (Heavy Rail Option 2).
Knox Report railway proposal:
Heavy Rail Option 1A the longer elevated option with 9km of viaduct. Viaduct from
Huntingdale Station and across Princes Highway. Viaduct through and past Monash
University and across Monash Freeway. Both options the same beyond Monash Freeway below ground past Waverley Park then viaduct across East Link then descending below
ground before Rowville returning to a viaduct about 500m West of Stud Road climbing and
looping first southward then North along Stud Road.
Heavy Rail Option 1B the shorter elevated option with 7km of viaduct. Tunnel / open-cut
from Huntingdale Station climbing to viaduct at 1400m chainage continuing as viaduct
across Princes Highway descending below ground at Monash University and back to viaduct
around 3200m chainage and across Monash Freeway. Both options the same beyond
Monash Freeway - below ground past Waverley Park then viaduct across East Link then
descending below ground before Rowville returning to a viaduct about 500m West of Stud
Road climbing and looping first southward then North along Stud Road.
Features of the horizontal alignment are
i.
at Princes Highway the alignment curves North of Wellington Road into the
land of Monash University before curving back to Wellington Road
ii.
on the sloping ground approaching East Link the alignment curves well to
the South of the Wellington Road alignment crossing the existing East Link
curving back to the South edge of Wellington Road at 10,250m chainage
123
iii.
at around 11,250m chainage the alignment again loops to the South before
turning North along Stud Road
Knox Report gaps and limitations:

a)
b)
no information presented and possible little or no consideration of:
the track alignment at Huntingdale from the level of the existing

Dandenong track to the elevated level for the viaduct proposal (Heavy Rail
Option 1A)
changes required at Huntingdale Station
need to integrate proposals with possible upgrades to the capacity of the

Dandenong Line.
the width of various track sections (at-grade, open-cut, viaduct) and

following that its impact on the existing road lanes and road system
road barrier separation requirements between track and heavily trafficked

road alongside open-cut on North Road and at-grade sections of track
ventilation / smoke extraction of tunnels; access for operational

maintenance; track drainage; train power consumption and sustainability
station and entrances location in relation to the catchment of the local

residential potential rail users, university students, workers at local
commercial and industrial premises. The proposal to locate a station within
the grounds of Monash University needs to consider the attractiveness of
station use for local residents as well as University students and workers.
Station planning for integration with the local community and integration
into the various transportation modes
track alignment addressed in a rudimentary way and with the track gradient at several
locations steeper than current requirements (2% or 1:50 max) with 1:33 used for the
below ground option on North Road approaching Princes Highway; 1:30 used for the
below ground option at Monash University and 1:33 used for the viaduct structure at
the Wellington Road / Stud Road junction.
124
15. Conclusion
This engineering report presents a variety of horizontal and vertical alignment options, and
options for structure types, which have been derived during the overall Rowville Rail Study
process. The Rowville Rail Study has undertaken a significant amount of stakeholder and
community liaison, urban planning, high level architectural design, transport modelling and
environmental and sustainability reviews. This engineering report has been developed
during that process; it focuses on the engineering options which should be carried forward
for further consideration at the next stage of design.
The rail connection at the Dandenong Line at Huntingdale requires the Rowville tracks to
connect north of the existing station, and run towards Rowville below ground level between
this connection point and North Road. This below-ground alignment minimises conflict with
existing road and rail infrastructure at this location, and provides for a grade-separated rail
junction between the future Rowville and existing Dandenong lines.
The Huntingdale station platforms for the Rowville line would be located below ground, and
Huntingdale station would need to be substantially re-developed. The report includes an
alternative option for locating the new platforms east of the existing, which provides the
possibility of reducing substantially the amount of work needed to the existing station. This
option would require acquisition of adjacent industrial properties.
The curve of track between Huntingdale station and North Road runs beneath the Oakleigh
army barracks, which would require partial demolition. Alternatively a smaller radius curve
would avoid the barracks; however this would reduce the line speed over a short distance.
Cut and cover, or in isolated locations sprayed concrete lined tunnel, is most suitable for
below-ground track; the cover provides the ability to reinstate the ground above the tunnel.
Open cut would, however, offer capital and operational cost savings.
The North Road central median offers a suitable route for the railway with space for an open
cut structure with covered crossing points.
A bored tunnel option is provided but is not part of the preferred option due to the preference
for keeping the railway as shallow as possible for station access reasons, as well as taking
account of the higher costs of a bored tunnel.
A viaduct is appropriate east of Monash due to the steep and undulating ground profile, and
to limit the depth below ground of stations to the east and the west. Mulgrave station would
be built on this elevated structure.
Track is shown below ground in a cut and cover structure along Wellington Road east of the
Monash Freeway. To retain the function of the Jacksons Road/Wellington Road right turns,
the railway would cross below ground to the north verge of Wellington Road.
125
The Golf Course North approach to Rowville uses viaduct across the flood plains either side
of EastLink, requires property acquisitions, and a shallow tunnel beneath Stud Road. It
clashes with the planned Caribbean Business Park development.
The Wellington Road approach to Rowville follows Wellington Road across EastLink, uses
viaduct to the east of EastLink, then cut and cover tunnel for the eastern part of Wellington
Road and along Stud Road. The length of rail at-grade between the viaduct and the cut and
cover sections would affect the industrial service road junctions along Wellington Road.
Some commercial property acquisition would be required.
The choice of the alignment into Rowville will depend on factors including the consideration
of property acquisitions and the loss of natural habitat.
The structures (ie tunnels, viaducts etc) needed to provide a suitable rail profile have been
discussed in detail, and based on engineering assessment the cut and cover method for
shallow tunnels is generally the most appropriate. Sprayed concrete lined tunnel may be
effective for crossings under existing roads to limit the need for lane closures; open cut
structure is also an option. Two lengths of viaduct structure are included, with one containing
Mulgrave station. The viaducts provide for a smooth rail profile above undulating ground
along Wellington Road, and allow the rail to be raised above the flood level for the Golf
Course North option on the approach to Rowville.
The construction aspects of the scheme will be an important element given the potential for
disruption during the construction phase. Cut and cover construction is feasible for the below
ground track, and placing the cover before completing excavation in a top-down approach
reduces the amount of open excavation. This is a significant scheme and the anticipated
project timeline for construction works is approximately three years, with a further year for
rail works and rail systems commissioning.
126

Rowville Rail Study Preliminary Rail Design Report FINAL

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rowville Rail Study Preliminary Rail Design Report FINAL

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Preliminary

Engineering Summary ................................................................................................... 5

Basis of Design .............................................................................................................. 6

Physical constraints and opportunities ...................................................................... 7

Alignment Options ....................................................................................................... 10

Alignment Option Selection ........................................................................................ 13

Civil Structures Required ............................................................................................ 30

Tunnel cross section requirements .................................................................. 34

Open Cut .......................................................................................................... 38

Elevated Sections (Viaduct) ............................................................................. 41

Typical Design Elements ............................................................................ 42

Elevated Station Design .............................................................................. 47

Approach Ramps and Tunnel Portals ......................................................... 49

Design issues .............................................................................................. 49

Construction Issues .................................................................................... 53

Princes Highway grade separation ............................................................. 57

Monash Freeway grade separation ............................................................ 57

East Link grade separation, Alignment A or A* ........................................... 57

East Link grade separation, Alignment C .................................................... 57

Sprayed Concrete Lined Tunnel ...................................................................... 58

TBM Bored tunnel ............................................................................................ 62

General Principles ....................................................................................... 62

Twin tunnels versus single bore .................................................................. 64

Station design .................................................................................................. 66

Underground Stations ................................................................................. 66

Elevated Stations ........................................................................................ 67

Fire and Life Safety .......................................................................................... 68

7.10.1 Fire Engineering Process ............................................................................ 68

Ventilation Concepts ........................................................................................ 74

Basis of Design ................................................................................................ 79

Implementing new Rowville Rail Link ............................................................... 80

Traction Power and Overhead Line Electrification ................................................... 84

Tie Stations ................................................................................................. 84

Rowville Line Power Requirements ............................................................ 85

Interface with Dandenong corridor .............................................................. 88

Open route .................................................................................................. 88

Elevated and viaducts ................................................................................. 89

Tunnels and restricted space ...................................................................... 89

10. Railway Communication ............................................................................................. 96

Project Timeline ............................................................................................... 99

Noise and vibration impacts ............................................................................. 99

Temporary access Shafts .............................................................................. 100

Construction Method ...................................................................................... 101

Work Sites ...................................................................................................... 113

Traffic Management ....................................................................................... 115

Maintenance Access Requirements............................................................... 118

Protection of Operational Rail Infrastructure .................................................. 118

Operational Requirements ............................................................................. 120

Rail, Road and Pedestrian Protection Measures ........................................... 120

12. Railway Operational Safety ....................................................................................... 122

15. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 125

Appendix F: Geotechnical Report

Physical constraints and opportunities

Implication for alignment

Rail connection to Dandenong

Rail connection should provide a grade separated junction, with the

Suitable location of Huntingdale

Rowville tracks connecting into the Dandenong line using an elevated

Future Dandenong Rail Corridor

North Road Flyover

This road bridge constrains the option of an elevated departure from

Oakleigh Army Barracks

High ground on East side of

Creates significant incline for track from Huntingdale Station to Princes