The Age reported that the State Government is planning to reduce the three stations in Brunswick (Jewell, Brunswick and Anstey) to two during the project to remove 8 level crossings.
Looking at the current distances between the stations (source: Vicsig) we can see they’re pretty close.
| Station | km from Southern Cross | km from previous stop |
|---|---|---|
| Royal Park | 5.432 | |
| Jewell | 6.463 | 1.031 |
| Brunswick | 7.273 | 0.81 |
| Anstey | 7.981 | 0.708 |
| Moreland | 8.784 | 0.803 |
Platforms are about 160 metres long, meaning the distance from the end of one to the start of another could be as little as about 550 metres.
Using the proposed locations, the distances would be more like this:
| Royal Park | 5.432 | |
| Proposed southern | 6.663 | 1.231 |
| Proposed northern | 7.723 | 1.06 |
| Moreland | 8.784 | 1.061 |
That’s not terrible, especially if as they claim the two new stations will have entrances at both ends, to minimise extra walking time. (It’s a shame a lot more stations don’t get this.)
But… How well will the new locations link to the walking network eg streets, especially east-west?
And what about connecting buses? The local area map shows there are five plus a Night Bus:
- 504 – Brunswick Road, Jewell station
- 506 – Dawson Street, Jewell station
- 508 – Victoria Street, Brunswick station
- 951 (Night Bus) – Victoria Street, Brunswick station
- 509 – Victoria Street, Brunswick station
- 503 – Albion Street, Anstey station
Of these, it’s no great issue if you divert 509 and 951 to serve the new stations. But for the others diverting would make them less direct, slowing down through journeys.
How will the new stations serve any major traffic generators in the area? One is proposed to be adjacent the RMIT campus, which is good.
Unlike many suburban stations, there are not many shops focussed around them – most are along nearby Sydney Road instead. But are there other notable locations such as Barkly Square that should be considered?
What does the local community think about this?
Crucially, will they also fund duplication of the northern end of the line to happen at the same time?
One less stop would only make about a minute’s train journey difference. It’s duplication that would really be the thing to bring more services and better reliability on the Upfield line.
- State Government Engagement web site (Closes 20th October)
- Merri-Bek council information
- Brunswick Voice story
- If you’re wondering, removal of these 8 crossings would still leave 3 on the inner section, and 7 on the outer section, as well as several pedestrian-only crossings.
UPDATE: Friday night:
11 replies on “Brunswick stations: 3 or 2?”
You probably are familiar with this piece, but: https://transportist.org/2017/05/03/sydney-train-station-need-two-exits/
There’s a page open on Engage Victoria for the Brunswick level crossing removals, and the question about duplication to Upfield has been asked by multiple people, with the answer always the same:
“The duplication of the Upfield Line beyond Gowrie Station is not within the scope of this project. We understand that this is an area of interest and would encourage you to share your thoughts with the Department of Transport and Planning for them to consider in future planning.”
They’re also noncommittal on bus route changes (“The project is in the early development stage. Any changes to bus routes and services due to the new elevated stations have yet to be determined”), and some other recurring questions, which I guess they have to be.
Do you mean ‘509 – Hope Street’? There are some east-west road network connectivity challenges between Melville and Lygon/Nicholson that will be difficult to overcome in any bus network reform to respond to the new station locations. I think the best answer will be to more or less leave the existing routes where they are and just accept that there will likely be an extra 200-300m walk from some of them (including the 508, arguably the premium E-W bus route north of Melb, south of Bell).
@Mat, yes the 509 is the Hope St bus, but it connects with trains at Brunswick station in Victoria Street.
The proposed northern station would be close to Hope St, so diverting the bus to cross (under) the railway there would be no big issue.
I don’t think you would want to divert the 508 to Hope Street though. Very narrow and would require a right hand turn on to Sydney Road without lights. There’s a reason the 509 is little more than a sympathy route, whereas the 508 does some heavy lifting.
Fair comment about passenger entrances/exits at both end of platforms. This should be standard for any station redevelopment, unless there is no genuine need. Too many of the stations rebuilt under LXRP are impressive-looking structures, but have actually reduced the convenience for passengers. In most of the locations where tunneling was involved, there are also many missed opportunities to enable pedestrians and cyclists to travel under/over the road, as the trains can now do.
I assume Royal Park station stays at in. If travelling north the ascent from Royal Park station through the cutting, over Park St & Brunswick Rd would be quite steep I’d think ?
I am against the merging of railway stations generally. Although I accept the point around access points at both ends of respective platforms.
I wonder if we will experience the same thing when they announced the merger of Mont Albert and Surry Hills? We got ourselves a new station at Pakenham East to compensate.
Where would we like our compensation station to be built this time? Perhaps Cave Hill, Calder Park, Between Werribee and Hoppers Crossing, or to extend Werribe?
Generally against merging stations, but these ones are close, and relocating them shouldn’t cause a huge inconvenience, especially with duel end access points.
I think we’ll experience the same station spacing rejigging when they get around to the crossing removal of the Clifton Hill / Bell St section on the Mernda line. Would not be surprised to see Thornbury and Croxton closed and a new station at Normanby Ave – would also be a more convenient interchange with the 510 bus. And would Rushall and Merri survive the MM2?
@Jim By the time this project is done, the planned station at Tarneit West (Davis Road) ought to be finished, meaning there will be no net loss of stations across Melbourne.
I’d suspect the problem is Anstey. Currently it’s on a 1 in 40 grade – completely verboten in current practice. If it was replaced it would have to be level.
The bridge over Albion St would be about 5 metres in the air. Then the track would have to be level, while the ground drops away. The Melbourne end of the new Anstey platform would be about 9 metres up. That’s a high viaduct – nearly twice as high as those at Carnegie, for example.
If you move Anstey, the viaduct can fall with the land down towards Hope St. The closest you could put the new Anstey to the old one is north of Hope St. But that makes the new station close to Brunswick. So Brunswick’s got to be moved south.
You could put the new Brunswick station north of Dawson St, with the platforms giving a fine view into the baths. Perhaps not.
So, south of Dawson St it is. Lots of room on the old goods yard. But that’s to close to Jewell. Jewell can’t be moved any further south due to the ramp which can’t start much before Park St. So Jewell goes.
Incidentally, I hope they’ve done some geophysical tests (or looked at the construction plans for the Coburg line). Some of the track on the flat bit between Jewell and Anstey is built on filled in quarries. This could require interesting foundations.