crossing borders tracks and trails: volume 2 daylesford to … · 2019-06-06 · ©insight leisure...

Final Report

July 2013

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon

Ranges Rail Trail

© Insight Leisure Planning 2013 | Final Report

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Report Format ............................................................................................................... 3

2. Background ........................................................................................................................... 4

3. Vision and Aspirations ........................................................................................................... 8

4. Target Markets ...................................................................................................................... 9

5. Shire and Regional Tourism Priorities ................................................................................. 10

6. Significance to the Local / Regional Tourism Industry ........................................................ 10

7. Current Cycle Touring Activity ............................................................................................ 11

8. Competitive Strengths ........................................................................................................ 12

9. Estimated Tourism Demand and Economic Impact ............................................................ 13

10. Other Benefits ................................................................................................................. 15

11. Land Tenure Studies ........................................................................................................ 16

12. Possible Trail Network Layout ......................................................................................... 18

13. Staged Implementation .................................................................................................. 36

14. Use of the Operational Rail Corridor .............................................................................. 38

15. Infrastructure Requirements .......................................................................................... 41

16. Proposed Management Model ....................................................................................... 46

17. Design Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 48

18. Estimated Development Costs ........................................................................................ 55

19. Maintenance ................................................................................................................... 58

20. Trail Promotion and Marketing ....................................................................................... 59

21. Potential Barriers ............................................................................................................ 62

22. Action Plan ...................................................................................................................... 63

23. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 66

24. Appendix 1: Clarkefield to Malmsbury ........................................................................... 67



1. Introduction The Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails project is a joint initiative of Hepburn Shire Council,

Ballarat City Council, Macedon Ranges Shire Council, Central Goldfields Shire Council,

Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Transport.

Tracks and trails are recognized as important community assets that offer a broad range of

physical activity participation opportunities, with a strong focus on recreational walking,

bushwalking, running, cycling and mountain bike riding.

The Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails project provides an integrated and coordinate approach

to major trail master planning and maximise opportunities for social, recreational and tourism

benefits from each of the selected projects.

There are four individual projects that are considered in the Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails

project, these are:

The Ballarat - Maryborough Heritage Trail which aims to provide an on-road cycling

connection utilising back-country roads between Maryborough to Ballarat (via Creswick

and other small towns);

The Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail (DMRT), linking Daylesford to Woodend

utilising a combination of rail corridor and (where required) alternative routes;

The Black Hill Mountain Bike (MTB) Park (e.g. municipal MTB Park); and

Creswick Trails initiative which includes a combination of mountain bike trails, shared trails

and walking paths throughout the Creswick forest.

The aim of the project is to establish a strategic action plan for each of the four identified

projects in order to guide further implementation of each, including identification of key

priorities, indicative costs, benefits and ongoing management options.

This report relates to the Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail (DMRT) initiative.

1.1 Report Format The project reports have been presented in the following volumes:

Volume 1: Summary Report

o Description: Overall synopsis of key findings and summary action plan for each of

the four selected projects.

Volume 2: Selected Project Reports (x4).

o Description: Stand alone overview of key findings and directions for each

individual project.

Volume 3: Background Reference Material

o Description: Selected support material and reference documents, including design

guidelines.



2. Background The Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail is a proposed rail trail connecting Daylesford and

Woodend, via the towns of Musk, Lyonville and Trentham. Like all rail trails, it proposes to re-

use an old, decommissioned railway alignment to create a shared-use pathway for pedestrians

and cyclists.

The proposed rail trail will cross over two municipalities, Hepburn Shire and Macedon Ranges

Shire. The overall length of the proposed rail trail is approximately 43.1km. Around 26.5km

(or 61.5% of the entire distance) is within the Hepburn Shire and 16.6km (or 38.5% of the

entire distance) is within the Macedon Ranges Shire.

The proposed rail trail has been variously referred to as the Daylesford to Woodend Rail Trail,

the Central Highlands Rail Trail and the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail in previous

reporting. The title Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail (DMRT) is the name used in this

report.

For Macedon Ranges Shire (MRS), the concept of the rail trail is broader than a connection

from Daylesford to Woodend. Whilst this is the primary component under investigation as

part of this project, MRS harbour bigger aspirations for use of the active rail corridor for

shared-use pathway construction to provide off-road connections between major settlements

within the Shire, i.e. between Clarkefield to Malmsbury, incorporating the section between

Woodend-Carlsruhe Station which may form part of the DMRT. (Please refer to Appendix 1).

The following information is from the ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines’ published by Rail

Trails Australia. It defines a rail trail as:

‘…a trail that closely follows (preferably on) the formation of a former railway line or

runs beside an active railway for the majority of its length. What sets rail trails apart

from other trails are that they are gently graded and have a history. All should at least

be suitable for walking and depending on the surface, can also be used by mountain

bikes, hybrid bikes, prams and wheel chairs, and even four wheel “gophers”.'

As noted in the definition above, it is the gentle gradient of these former railways that make

rail trails a popular option for recreational and commuter use.

In most cases in Australia, when a railway has been decommissioned the steel rails or tracks

are removed, as these are reasonably valuable. In some cases the sleepers, which historically

were made of wood (but are often now made of concrete), are also removed. In other cases,

where the sleepers have been left in place, they were often stolen or have simply rotted away.

With the tracks and the sleepers removed, the underlying trackbed remains. The trackbed

was generally surfaced with ballast, a type of quarried aggregate stone or gravel, laid over the

underlying earth and levelled and compacted to ensure stability and proper drainage. On



some decommissioned railway lines, the ballast still remains in place, while on others it has

been physically removed for other purposes or it has been covered over with earth, organic

matter or vegetation.

It is the trackbed itself that is of most use and value for the purposes of a rail trail. In effect, all

that needs to be done to build a rail trail on a former railway is to remove any vegetation,

remove any infrastructure that remains (including tracks and sleepers if they remain), scrape

back any organic matter or soil that has covered the trackbed and re-surface it with an

appropriate material for the rail trail.

Some existing rail trails in Australia include short detours off the actual railway alignment.

These detours may be necessary for a number of reasons:

A former railway bridge is too unsafe to use and too expensive to replace.

The former railway land is not accessible – it may have been leased or sold and cannot

legally be accessed.

There is a feature or attraction close by which it is desirable to include along the route.

Access to sections of active rail corridor (i.e. sections that continue to be used for rail

services) may not be approved/achievable.

Key Stakeholders:

The Central Highlands Rail Trail Working Group (CHRTWG), a Trentham based group of

volunteers, has been integral in driving the project this far. This group is passionate about

seeing the old railway line reclaimed and turned into a recreational trail for both locals and

visitors. CHRTWG have been working with the both Shire's and local communities to gather

support for the project. They have lobbied and consulted with many stakeholders including:

Trentham Residents and Traders Association, now trading as Friends Of Trentham Station;

Trentham Business and Tourism Group;

Railtrails Australia;

Bicycle Network;

Hepburn Shire Council;

Macedon Ranges Shire Council;

Daylesford Spa Country Railway;

VicTrack;

Department of Transport;

Tourism Hepburn;

Daylesford Macedon Ranges Regional Tourism Board;

Great Dividing Trail Association;

Conservation Volunteers;

Coliban Water;



Blackwood Special Schools Outdoor Education Centre;

Community Groups; Lyonville, Tylden, Carlsruhe.

Key allies with CHRTWG in promoting the construction of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail

Trail are Bicycle Network1 and Rail Trails Australia. Both organisations have provided

assistance to CHRTWG and have been instrumental in advocating and preliminary planning for

the project.

On their webpage (www.bicyclenetwork.com.au) Bicycle Network (BN) describe themselves as

‘…a charity that promotes the health of the community. We work with our supporters to get

“More People Cycling More Often” and measurably grow the bike riding world’. Figure 1 and

Figure 2 below show a brochure prepared by BN in early 2011. This brochure is intended to be

printed on A3 paper and folded up into a small pocket-sized map. It shows the proposed route

and discusses some of the benefits and highlights of the route.

Figure 1. Bicycle Network brochure (page 1)

1 Formerly known as Bicycle Victoria.



Figure 2. Bicycle Network (page 2)

Rail Trails Australia (RTA) is a not-for-profit organisation which works for the development and

promotion of a rail trail network Australia-wide. RTA have published guidebooks for rail trails

in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania which promote the concept of rail trails and facilitate

their use. On their website (railtrails.org.au) they state:

‘Rail Trails Australia is part of a growing international movement to develop and promote rail

trails. Similar groups operate in Canada, the USA, New Zealand, southern Africa and the

European Union.’

Furthermore, they list the following points, which summarise the type of support they can

provide to communities wishing to develop rail trails:

Engaging the community in supporting trail development.

Advocacy to all levels of government.

Expanding and marketing the network.

Supporting committees of management.

Sponsoring conferences and workshops to enhance skills and assist new rail trail

development.

Developing technical documents to assist groups setting up and maintaining rail trails.



3. Vision and Aspirations The tourism vision for the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail is for a family friendly,

outdoor experience of cycling through the bushland, hills and pastoral land between Woodend

and Daylesford (or vice versa) preferably utilising the designated rail corridors2. Cyclists will be

able to enjoy a variety of local produce outlets, mineral springs, cafes and wineries at

Woodend, Daylesford and a number of interesting villages and points of interest dotted in

between.

The trail will take around 3-3.5 hours to ride from Woodend Station to Daylesford (around 44

km), cyclists will be able to conduct a return trip in a day from Woodend or Daylesford, or

cycle one way, stay overnight at the end of the trail and return the next day. Alternatively,

users may choose to ride small sections of the trail and experience more of the natural and

cultural attractions along the way and stay at local villages. Finally, users could base

themselves at one of the smaller villages and conduct shorter return trips over a two-three

day period, e.g. Trentham to Daylesford on one day, and Trentham to Woodend the next (this

way luggage and vehicles can remain at the same accommodation property for the duration of

the stay).

With the wide variety of tourism experiences along the route, cyclists could enjoy a food and

wine themed cycle, or explore heritage features of the area, or conduct a ride that focuses on

natural attractions, flora and fauna. Or a mix of all of these.

The trail can be used by walkers and runners staying at any of the towns enroute. (A survey

undertaken for the Lilydale-Warburton Rail Trail in 2011 indicated that 15% of trail users

walked the trail.) The trail would be accessible to people with a disability, as well as those

with prams and walking frames, etc.

The trail could be used as a base to host a range of community events and activities, such as

family days, fun-runs etc, as well as organised group rides.

The proximity of the trail to Melbourne (only 1¼ hours to Woodend), beautiful scenery, range

of food and wine options, as well as the natural and cultural features will all be key drivers in

the success of the product from a tourism perspective.

Complementary experiences:

The popular towns of Woodend and Daylesford have an extensive range of visitor facilities and

services, including accommodation options, restaurants, markets and retail outlets. Trentham

also has a considerable range of visitor services and a small selection of quality

accommodation. There is a Farmers Market at Trentham on the 3rd Saturday of every month

which could provide an added incentive to visit.

2 Subject to formal approval and appropriate lease/licensing with Vic Track and other relevant authorities.



Smaller villages such as Bullarto and Lyonville have several accommodation options. Musk has

a small, excellent selection of wineries, local produce outlets and mineral springs. Tylden has a

general store and café for topping up on supplies.

There is potential to package a ride on the rail trail with a trip on the historic Daylesford Spa

Country Railway between Daylesford and Musk with 6 trains departing Daylesford every

Sunday.

There is a V/line train service from Melbourne to Woodend (Bendigo line) which runs hourly or

more frequently during peak periods from Monday to Friday, and almost hourly on weekends.

Cyclists could enjoy a car-free experience of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail.

It is worth reiterating that for Macedon Ranges Shire (MRS), the concept of the rail trail is

broader than a connection from Daylesford to Woodend. Whilst this is the primary

component under investigation as part of this project, MRS harbour bigger aspirations for use

of the active rail corridor for shared-use pathway construction to provide off-road connections

between major settlements within the Shire, i.e. between Clarkefield to Malmsbury,

incorporating the section between Woodend-Carlsruhe Station which may form part of the

DMRT.

4. Target Markets Research undertaken for other rail trails in Victoria indicates that the significant majority of

visitors to rail trails tend to be Victorians, but there is often a small percentage of interstate

and international visitors as well.

Due to the proximity of Woodend and Daylesford to Melbourne (only 1 ¼ hours Melbourne-

Woodend), it is likely that the capital city will be the primary source of visitors to the rail trail,

and ensure its frequent use.

Tourism Segments:

Family and friends groups.

Organised groups such as recreational cycling clubs

Couples and individuals (often 50+ years).

Nature-based visitors, including walkers and runners.

Visitor Origin:

Melbourne.

Regional Victoria, especially Ballarat and Bendigo.

Potentially some interstate and international cyclists.

With increasing interest in environmentally-friendly holidays, and the potential to travel to

Woodend by train for a car-free holiday, it is likely that the rail trail will particularly appeal to



this growth sector. It may therefore be useful to identify accommodation and other tourism

businesses that are operating / designed using sustainability principals to promote this to the

market segment.

Due to the availability of quality boutique accommodation in Woodend and Daylesford, and

the variety of food and wine, and nature-based experiences enroute, the trail has the potential

to appeal to the interstate market. Experiences could be packaged and promoted through

regional marketing initiatives.

5. Shire and Regional Tourism Priorities While there is no mention of developing the rail trail in the Destination Daylesford Strategic

Tourism Plan and Action Plan 2008-2018, it is listed as a priority project in the Hepburn Shire

Walking and Cycling Strategy, 2011.

Hepburn Shire’s Economic Development Business Plan, 2012, also states that the Council

supports “the development of various walking and cycling trails in the Shire including the

Domino Trail and the Daylesford-Woodend rail trail.”

While the trail is not listed in the Macedon Ranges Tourism Strategic Plan, 2011, Council has

indicated its support to examine the potential and feasibility of the trail.

The strategic plan of Daylesford and Macedon Ranges Tourism (DMR), which includes both

Hepburn and Macedon Ranges Shires, states that the primary marketing and product

development focus for the region is the spa and wellbeing sector. Discussions with DMR have

indicated that promoting nature-based activities that support health and wellbeing, such as

the rail trail, would align with these marketing directions.

6. Significance to the Local / Regional Tourism Industry Consultation undertaken for the project has indicated that there is a lack of longer distance

off-road and easy cycling trails in / around Woodend and Daylesford to cater for a range of

markets. Existing off-road cycling trails are around 30 minutes long and often do not meet

cycling tourists’ needs. The family market seeks safe trails with easy gradients for children,

while other segments are particularly seeking a longer off-road cycling experience.

The proposed rail trail will provide a critical piece of infrastructure for the family market which

will assist the towns of Daylesford, Trentham, Woodend and other villages enroute to attract

and retain families in their townships. This will provide benefits to a wide range of tourism

businesses and the general community.

Daylesford and Macedon Ranges Tourism has recognised the economic potential of the rail

trail and its capacity to support the region’s towns and villages. The organisation would



include it in marketing campaigns that target the higher yielding Socially Aware and Visible

Achiever family market segments (please refer to Volume 3: Background Reference Material

for more details on these segments).

The trail will also be conveniently located for visitors to Kyneton to enjoy, thus spreading the

economic benefits more broadly than just townships located on the main route.

Consultation with Bicycle Network has indicated that they consider this rail trail proposal a top

priority rail trail campaign outside Metropolitan Melbourne, and is a project of State-wide

significance.

7. Current Cycle Touring Activity While there is no statistical data on cycle tourism activity in the Hepburn and Macedon Ranges

Shire, consultation for the project and other anecdotal evidence indicates there is a strong

cycling culture in both Shires.

Wombat Mountain Bicycle Club based at Woodend is very active in the local community and

has built an extensive series of mountain bike (MTB) trails in the Wombat State Forest that

attracts around 300 riders a week from outside the region. However, these trails are of the

more extreme, challenging variety that would not suit the inexperienced family cycling market.

There are a number of major cycling events in the Macedon Ranges Shire, often involving road

cycling, including the MAD Ride (the oldest recreational bike ride in Victoria), Ride For Bikes,

the Mount Macedon Challenge, the Gisborne Rotary – Macedon Ranges Challenge, and the

Jayco Herald Sun Tour. There are also many other cycling events organised by community

groups and private businesses.

The Macedon Ranges Cycling Club has a long and proud history in the region. Racing was

conducted in the middle of the Kyneton Race Course from 1898. The club continues to

conduct a range of track and road cycling events throughout the Shire and there may be

opportunities for possible future use of the proposed Rail Trail for selected activities.

Daylesford also has a strong cycling culture using networks of sealed and unsealed roads,

which are supported by cyclists using the Goldfields Track. The local bike shop in Daylesford is

very busy, particularly on weekends, responding to requests for information about cycling

trails and facilities. They also conduct social rides in the area. The lack of sealed shoulders on

local roads makes road cycling less safe for inexperienced riders and much less appealing for

family markets.



In summary:

Staff at visitor information centres and bike shops in Woodend and Daylesford all state

there is unmet demand for an off-road, easy and accessible cycle trail that provides

several hours of enjoyable riding.

Inquiries come primarily from the family market, but also middle-aged and more senior

couples and individuals.

Inquiries for bike hire are on the rise in both Woodend and Daylesford.

The Domino Trail at Trentham is a 3-hour walking circuit that incorporates parts of the

railway easement that would be included in the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail.

While no visitor statistics are available, the Visitor Information Centre staff at Trentham

have stated that it is a very popular experience, particularly on weekends with families,

groups and couples.

8. Competitive Strengths The key elements of the rail trail that will support its success are:

Woodend is only 1 ¼ hours from Melbourne and accessible by train; Daylesford is only 1 ½

hours from Melbourne.

The splendid scenery through undulating hills, paddocks and bushland of the Central

Highlands which is superior to many other rail trail destinations within 1½ hours of

Melbourne.

Popular tourism townships located at each end of the trail, and interesting, ‘characterful’

villages and small businesses in between that provide unique visitor experiences.

A ready family market at each end of the trail and a lack of family-oriented activities.

Potential Linkages with Existing or Proposed Trails:

The Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail could potentially link with the Goldfields Track

providing a cycling experience all the way to Ballarat (and potentially onto the Ballarat-Skipton

Rail Trail) or Bendigo.

However, anecdotal feedback about the Goldfields Track indicates that the quality of trail in

many sections is much more rugged than a rail trail and may attract a different type of cycling

market. It is reasonable to assume that there will be a small level of overlap in the markets of

the two trails but not necessarily a full complement.

Mountain bikers are unlikely to be interested in the rail trail as it would not provide a

sufficiently challenging experience. As a result, there is unlikely to be much market demand

for connections to the proposed Creswick Trails network or Black Hill MTB Park.



Potential Linkages with Existing Services:

As identified above, an experience of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail could also

include a trip on the Daylesford Spa Country Railway on Sundays. Packages could be

developed to encourage this.

It would also be valuable to promote the connections to the V/line train service in Woodend to

encourage visitors to take a car-free trip.

Hepburn Shire Council and Moorabool Shire provide access to a “Trail Rider” (all terrain

wheelchairs) that can be booked in advance and picked up from the Daylesford Visitor

Information Centre so the trail can be enjoyed by people with a significant physical disability.

9. Estimated Tourism Demand and Economic Impact NB: Please refer to Volume 3: Background Reference Material for comprehensive details,

methodology and assumptions used in estimating Usage of the Proposed Trails, and

Economic Impacts of the Proposed Trails.

Findings of the estimated demand and economic impact analysis of the Daylesford Macedon

Ranges Rail Trail include:

Local residents in the Shires of Hepburn and Macedon Ranges are expected to conduct

between 4,460 to 6,690 visits on the trail per annum.

Between 31,300 and 62,580 visitors are expected to use the trail per annum.

The trail is expected to generate between $2 million and $4.1 million per annum in direct

and indirect expenditure, which would support between 25 and 51 new jobs in the local

economy.

New Tourism Business Opportunities:

While it is anticipated that many people interested in cycling the route would bring their own

bicycles, a proportion of the market may require bike hire when they arrive in Woodend,

Daylesford or Trentham, or organise bike hire in advance. As the popularity of the trail

develops, it is anticipated that there would be enough demand to sustain the establishment of

new bike hire services at Daylesford and possibly Trentham, potentially as an extension to an

existing business. Woodend Cycles already operates a bike hire service and would be prepared

to increase the range of bikes to suit rail trail cycling if the trail was developed.

Daylesford, Woodend, Trentham and nearby Kyneton, currently have a wide range of

accommodation and other visitor services with the rail trail likely to provide patronage to

support existing businesses.



Camping is occasionally permitted in Trentham at the Trentham Sports Ground (subject to

Reserve Committee of Management approval). The rail trail may provide a new market to

support expansion of camping activities, however consideration will need to be given to

relevant approvals and regulations.

A business in the area has expressed interest in operating a shuttle service for the rail trail to

collect / drop off riders, bikes and luggage, and to operate as a rescue service when needed.

Packages could be developed that combine bike hire, shuttle service, luggage transfer,

accommodation and possibly meals. This would be particularly useful for interstate markets.

Consultation for the project has also found that the rail trail would be likely to inspire the

development of new community based cycling and sporting events.



10. Other Benefits Aside from the anticipated tourism and economic benefits outlined in Section 15, the

proposed rail trail is also likely to facilitate a range of social, recreational and health benefits

for residents and visitors.

Social:

Participating in physical activities brings people together; it enhances opportunities for

social connections, gatherings and informal interaction.

Encouraging use of the rail trail will help address social isolation, disadvantage (i.e.

through provision of a low cost, informal physical activity participation opportunity) and

enhance community connectedness, pride and belonging.

Facilitating community events around the trail will provide opportunities for community

gatherings, volunteerism and positive social outcomes.

Attracting additional tourism expenditure will support local businesses and encourage

community pride and secondary investment.

Providing physical and social connections between small towns and villages.

Recreational:

The proposed trail will provide a low cost, informal physical activity participation

opportunity for residents and visitors.

Walking, cycling, running and bush walking all rank in the top-ten most popular physical

activities undertaken by Victorian adults aged 15 years and over3. Development of the rail

trail will facilitate opportunities for increased participation.

Health Benefits:

There are a range of mental and physical health benefits associated with regular contact

with nature and participation in physical activities, including (but not limited to) reduced

incidences of:

o Cardio vascular disease,

o Cardiopulmonary disease,

o Obesity,

o Diabetes,

o High blood pressure,

o Anxiety, and

o A range of mental illnesses.

3 Australian Sports Commission, Exercise Recreation and Sport Survey (ERASS), 2010.



11. Land Tenure Studies In April 2010, Hepburn Shire Council prepared a report titled ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure

Summary - Creswick to Daylesford Line & Daylesford to Carlsruhe Line’. This report was

prepared for internal purposes and identifies land within the railway corridor that:

Is owned by VicTrack (State Government Authority);

Is subject to a VicTrack Lease (owned by VicTrack but leased to external party);

Is not subject to a VicTrack Lease (vacant);

Has been disposed of (sold or gifted).

The report summarises the current situation as follows:

‘The Creswick to Daylesford and Daylesford to Carlsruhe rail corridor is currently being used for

a wide range of purposes by a number of different individuals and organisations. The following

key points deliver a summarised representation of the corridor:

Approximately 30% of the corridor has been disposed of (sold or gifted);

Approximately 15% of the corridor is still “classified” as an Operational Tourist Railway;

VicTrack Reserves contain a combination of “leased” and “unleased” land.’

While this report deals with some complex land tenure issues, the key messages that can be

drawn from this report are:

All the rail corridor from Daylesford heading east along the line to the edge of the

Hepburn Shire boundary is still owned by VicTrack (that is, none of it has been disposed

of);

A portion of the rail corridor is still in use today as a tourist railway (Daylesford to Bullarto,

operated by Daylesford Spa Country Railway);

The majority of the line is currently under lease. The report states that ‘The majority of

these leases do not have a documented expiry dates and are continuous with an

automated monthly term renewal process set in place by VicTrack.’

In March 2012, Macedon Ranges Shire Council prepared a similar land tenure report looking at

the eastern end of the Carlsruhe to Daylesford line, where it passes through the Macedon

Ranges Shire. This report was titled ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure Summary – Carlsruhe to

Daylesford Line’.

The key messages from this report were:

All the rail corridor from Carlsruhe Station heading west along the line to the edge of the

Macedon Ranges Shire boundary is still owned by VicTrack (that is, none of it has been

disposed of);



The majority of the line is currently vacant (not under lease). In many cases, it appears

that the buffer areas on either side of the original railway line have been leased, but the

central strip (where the actual railway line would have been located) remains vacant. This

will require further confirmation and discussions with the adjacent leaseholder and

landowner.

Figure 3 below shows a typical scenario for how the VicTrack lease parcels are structured, with

a central strip type covering the actual former railway alignment and a wider strip on either

side, presumably as a buffer between the former railway and the adjacent private land.

Figure 3. Typical leasehold arrangements of Vic Track land (courtesy of Macedon Ranges Shire

Council)



12. Possible Trail Network Layout The project team visited the site on a number of occasions to investigate the proposed route

on the ground. Sections of the proposed route were investigated on foot, by bicycle and by

vehicle.

It should be stated that the entire route was not physically inspected by the project team as

part of this project. At this early stage in the development of the proposed DMRT, much of

the land proposed to be used is still held under lease by a range of leaseholders (primarily for

agricultural purposes), who have not been formally consulted about the proposal. As such,

the project team could not gain access to large sections of the proposed route.

Even where the VicTrack land has not been formally leased and is listed as vacant (see

previous discussion), fencing does not always reflect this status. In many cases, adjacent

landholders have fenced across land that is technically vacant VicTrack leasehold land,

effectively occupying it and preventing access.

Where the project team was able to gain access to the proposed corridor, it appears to be in

good condition. In some areas heavy vegetation growth has covered the trackbed, but in the

majority of examples, the corridor passes through open farmland and the trackbed is covered

only with grass. Some areas were observed where the sleepers are still in place, but this

appears to be the exception, rather than the rule.

At least two large bridges were observed that will require further investigation, including

preliminary assessment and design by engineers. These were the Coliban River bridge and the

Little Coliban River bridge. Other bridges may be present along the route that will need to be

assessed by engineers and potentially rebuilt or refurbished, but as the entire route could not

be inspected, the exact number of bridges remains unclear at this time.

The area through which the rail trail passes is a mix of Eucalypt forests and open farmland. It

has good scenic values and offers plenty of opportunities for sightseeing and tourism along the

way. The main tourism facilities (cafes, restaurants, accommodation, attractions) are

clustered at the three main towns of Daylesford, Trentham and Woodend, but there are also

many attractions along the route. The terrain is mostly gently rolling hills, becoming flatter

towards the eastern end of the route.

The route will cross over many minor roads and a handful of major, busy roads. All road

crossings will require appropriate signage and infrastructure, but the major road crossings will

need to be treated with extra caution and comply with relevant Australian Standards and Vic

Roads requirments.



Overall Route:

For the purposes of this project, the proposed rail trail will be considered in five different

sections4. The sections are:

Section Name Distance Approx. % in each LGA

Section 1 Daylesford to Bullarto 9.4km 100% HSC (using the rail corridor)

Section 2 Bullarto to Lyonville 3.7km 100% HSC

Section 3 Lyonville to Trentham 6.3km 100% HSC

Section 4 Trentham to Carlsruhe Station 17.4km 44% HSC, 56% MRSC

Section 5 Carlsruhe Station to Woodend 7.0km 100% MRSC (using the rail corridor)

Total 43.8km 27.07km or 62% is HSC.

16.68km or 38% is MRSC

These sections are shown in Map 1 – each section is given a different colour, as indicated in

the map legend.

These sections were chosen based on the characteristics of each section – the current use, the

current land status, the ease of construction etc.

Note that the route follows two operational railway lines – the Spa Country Railway, a tourist

railway that operates weekend services (priamirly Sunday's) between Daylesford and Bullarto

and the busy Melbourne – Bendigo railway between Carlsruhe Station and Woodend.

Map 1. Overall Route of the Daylesford Macedon Rail Trail

4 NB: Section numbering is not an indication of priority. Potential staging of implementation for each Section is

discussed in the following chapter.



Section 1 – Daylesford To Bullarto:

Start Daylesford Station

Finish Bullarto Station

Distance via railway line 9.4km

Elevation at start 616m

Elevation at end 761m

Estimated number of road crossings 8

LGA 100% HSC

Section 1 of the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail begins at Daylesford and

extends southeast to Bullarto. It is 9.4km and climbs 145m over the entire distance. This

section of the former railway is still operational. The Daylesford Spa Country Railway currently

operates weekly tourist services on this existing rail line. Daylesford Spa Country Railway lease

the land from VicTrack.

Given the current operational use of the rail corridor, the actual railway trackbed is not

available for the construction of the proposed rail trail as it is in other places along the line.

This leaves the following three broad options for this section of the proposed Daylesford

Macedon Ranges Rail Trail:

Option 1 – Construct a trail adjacent to the operational train track, within the railway

corridor leased by the Spa Country Railway from VicTrack.

Option 2 – Identify an alternate route, using existing roads, tracks or paths, completely

outside the railway corridor.

Option 3 – Exclude this section of the rail corridor from the Daylesford Macedon Ranges

Rail Trail altogether.

Option 1, constructing a new trail adjacent to the train tracks and within the railway corridor

remains the preferred long-term option as it is the shortest route (approximately the same as

the actual railway at 9.4km), it is the most consistent with the overall concept of a rail trail, it

provides the alignment with the most gentle gradients and minimises potential conflicts with

road vehicles. However, it is acknowledged that this option is not preferred by the Spa

Country Rail group due to a range of operational, management and safety factors that would

have significant impacts on their capacity to continue to operate the Tourist Railway (it is

worth noting that the Spa Country Railway is a designated Historic Museum in Victoria, i.e. not

just for the locomotives and carriages, but rather the entire rail corridor from Daylesford to

Bullarto.

Option 2, to identify an alternate route outside the rail corridor, using existing roads, tracks or

paths, has been investigated and two possible routes have been identified. These will be

discussed in greater detail below. Unfortunately, neither of the two alternate routes



represent ideal alignments, both are substantially longer and include steeper gradients than

the railway corridor.

Option 3 to start/end the rail trail at Bullarto (potentially connecting to passenger services run

by the Spa Country Rail) was also considered by the project team. However, it was agreed that

Daylesford is the tourism centrepiece of the area, with the majority of accommodation and

attractions, and the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail needs to start/finish there.

Map 2. Section 1. Daylesford Station to Bullarto Station

The two different alternate routes are described below.

Alternate Route 1 is 12.4km long. The average gradient is approximately 3.2% and there are

some steeper hills up to 10%. The route is described as follows (starting at Daylesford and

travelling east towards Bullarto):

0 – 2.0km, Daylesford-Trentham Rd – Starting from the corner of the Midland Highway

and the Daylesford-Trentham Rd. Construct path adjacent to the Daylesford-Trentham Rd.

Road reserve is quite wide on northern side of the road, with gentle gradients and nice



scenery (see Figure 4 below). This path would also serve as a link to the Daylesford

Cemetery.

2.0km – 4.2km, Leitches Creek Rd – Use existing sealed road.

4.2km – 12.4km, Osborne Rd – Use existing unsealed road. Finish at corner of Daylesford-

Trentham Rd and South Bullarto Rd.

Figure 4. Broad road reserve beside the Daylesford-Trentham Rd

Alternate Route 2 is 12.3km long. The average gradient is approximately 2.9% and there are

some steeper hills up to 10%. The route is described as follows (starting at Daylesford and

travelling east towards Bullarto):

0 - 2.4km, East St – Start at corner of East St and Daylesford-Trentham Rd. Use existing

sealed road;

2.4km – 3.7km, Wombat Dam Rd – Use existing sealed road;

3.7km – 5.9km, Coopers Lane – Use existing unsealed road;

5.9km – 6.7km, School Rd – Use existing unsealed road;

6.7km – 8.2km, Daylesford-Trentham Rd – Use existing sealed road;

8.2km – 10.8km, Cantillons Rd – Use existing unsealed/sealed road;

10.8km – 11.7km, Mossops Rd – Use existing sealed/unsealed road;

11.7km – 12.3km, South Bullarto Rd – Use existing sealed road. Finish at corner of

Daylesford-Trentham Rd and South Bullarto Rd.



Table 1 below provides a high-level assessment of each option having regard to user safety,

likely capital and operational costs, amenity/user experience, consistency with the concept of

a Rail Trail (including product positioning) as well as other advantages or disadvantages of

each.

Table 1. Section 1 – Route Option Assessment

Route Option

User Safety (High, Medium, Low)

Indicative Capital Cost (High, Medium, Low)

Ongoing Maintenance (High, Medium, Low)

Amenity/User Experience (Comment)

Consistency with Rail Trail Concept (High, Medium, Low)

Other Advantages

Other Disadvantages

Ranking and Summary Comment

Within the active rail corridor.

High Assumes appropriate safety measures including fencing and road crossings.

Very high Including trail construction, fencing, road crossings, possible low level bridges over small creeks and boggy areas and planning costs.

Medium Including regular inspection of fencing, vegetation management, bridge crossings and path repairs as required.

High The Daylesford Spa Country Railway has a minimal operating schedule and has good scenic and historic appeal. It provides the opportunity for users to use the rail trail in one direction and catch the tourist railway in the other.

High Preferred option for promoting an integrated Rail Trail tourism product.

Most direct and shortest route. Limited grade variation adds to ease of cycling. Off-road, minimal conflict with vehicles. Appears to be adequate width in the existing corridor to establish the trail.

Requires Council acceptance of legal responsibly for land management and maintenance. Requires comprehensive pre-planning and formal approval process from rail operators / authorities.

Preferred Development of a shared use pathway within the active rail corridor remains the 'best fit' option, however it is also likely to attract the highest capital cost and require acceptance of ongoing maintenance and management responsibilities by Council. This option will also require the most complex pre-planning and approvals prior to proceeding.

Alternate Route 1 (magenta)

Low Mostly follows open roads, and requires crossing of the busy Daylesford-Trentham Rd at Bullarto.

Medium A 2km long section of shared-use trail is proposed to be constructed beside the Daylesford-Trentham Rd.

Low Largely limited to periodic road repairs and scheduled maintenance.

Medium Although this route maximises use of relatively quite roads, Rail Trail cyclists (i.e. target market) prefer off-road trails. Some sections of existing roads are quite rough and steep. Enjoyable scenery and some interesting tourism attractions.

Low Creation of a shared use trail adjacent to the Daylesford-Trentham Rd to the Daylesford Cemetery would serve a wider community purpose than just the intended Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail; Route passes close by the Daylesford Cider Tavern and Leitches

Approximately 3km longer than the railway corridor. Steeper than the railway corridor. Requires riders to cross over the Daylesford-Trentham Rd at Bullarto. Includes substantial sections of open roads.

Next Preferred This option provides limited appeal to likely target markets due to on-road sections and interface with traffic. However if an off-road sealed path could be established within the road reserve of the Daylesford-Trentham Rd this may help overcome this issue and provide a trail that connects Daylesford township with



Route Option

User Safety (High, Medium, Low)

Indicative Capital Cost (High, Medium, Low)

Ongoing Maintenance (High, Medium, Low)


Consistency with Rail Trail Concept (High, Medium, Low)

Other Advantages

Other Disadvantages

Ranking and Summary Comment

Spring; Picturesque scenery along Osborne Rd, passing through State Forest

the Daylesford Cemetery.

Alternate Route 2 (orange)

Low Mostly follows open roads, including a 1.5km section of the busy Daylesford-Trentham Rd.

Low Likely to be the lowest cost option, largely established through signage and line marking on existing roads. Some shoulder sealing may be required, subject to detailed investigation.


Medium Although this route maximises use of relatively quite roads, Rail Trail cyclists (i.e. target market) prefer off-road trails. Some sections of existing roads are quite rough and steep. Enjoyable scenery and some interesting tourism attractions.

Low Route passes close by Passing Clouds Winery and Istra Smallgoods.

Approximately 3km longer than the railway corridor. Steeper than the railway corridor. Requires riders to use the Daylesford-Trentham Rd for approximately 1.5km near Musk. No alternative could be found to avoid this section of road. Includes substantial sections of open roads.

Least Preferred This option is not preferred due to concerns regarding user safety and limited appeal of the route.

Conclusion:

Despite the likely high capital cost and requirement to address management and operational

factors posed by the ongoing operation of the Spa Country Railway, development of a shared

pathway within the active rail corridor remains the 'best-fit' in terms of a strategic rail trail

tourism product for Section 1.

Alternate Route 1 utilising the Daylesford-Trentham Road reserve may present a viable

alternative, however this is also likely to attract moderate capital cost and requires more

detailed investigation beyond the scope of this project. This route may also offer broader

benefits for the local community by providing a safe cycling/walking connection to the local

cemetery.

Alternate Route 1 should be pursued as the short-medium term solution for this section, or

until such a time as detailed planning and stakeholder agreement can be reached to utilise the

Spa Country Railway corridor for establishment of a shared use pathway adjacent to the active

line.



Section 2 – Bullarto to Lyonville:

Start Bullarto Station

Finish Lyonville

Distance via Railway Line 3.7km




LGA 100% HSC

Section 2, from Bullarto Station to Lyonville Station is 3.7km long via the railway alignment. It

passes through a mix of forests and farmland and descends 25m over the entire length of the

section.

The Hepburn Shire Council’s ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure Summary’ shows the entire section

as being leased to the ‘Friends of Trentham Station’ group.

Field observations suggest that some sections of the rail corridor are being occupied by

adjacent landholders without a formal lease in place.

Map 3: Section 2 Bullarto Station to Lyonville



Section 3 – Lyonville to Trentham:

Start Lyonville

Finish Trentham Station





LGA 100% HSC

Section 3, Lyonville to Trentham, is 6.3km long. It has a gentle downhill profile, descending

44m over the entire distance. The Hepburn Shire Council’s ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure

Summary’ shows the entire section as being leased by the ‘Friends of Trentham Station’ group.

Map 4. Section 3 Lyonville to Trentham

This section incorporates the existing Domino Trail. Section of the Domino Trail have recently

been upgraded to improve functionality and use. A map identifying the Domino Trail is

included on the following page.



Figure 5. Domino Trail map



Section 4 – Trentham to Carlsruhe Station:

Start Trentham Station

Finish Carlsruhe Station




Estimated number of road crossings 7 (including two major road crossings – Trentham

Rd and Tylden Woodend Rd)

LGA 44% HSC, 56% MRSC

At 17.4km, Section 4 is the longest section of the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail

Trail. It has a gentle overall descent, dropping 144m over the entire distance.

The Hepburn Shire Council’s ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure Summary’ and the Macedon

Ranges Shire Council’s ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure Summary’ show the majority of the land

as being vacant. The only leased sections are located:

Just east of Trentham Station.

Near Fern Hill Station, on either side of James Lane.

Field observations show the majority of this land located in open farming country, with gentle

rolling hills and an open, sunny aspect. Some sections of the railway alignment appear to be

densely overgrown with vegetation (including blackberries and other weeds). In many areas

the railway alignment appears to have been incorporated into the nearby farmlands, despite

the actual status of the land being vacant.



Map 5: Section 4 Trentham to Carlsruhe Station

NB: Two major road crossings required: Trentham Rd and Tylden Woodend Rd.



Section 5 – Carlsruhe Station to Woodend Station:

Start Carlsruhe Station

Finish Woodend Station




Estimated number of road crossings 3 (including one major road crossing – Tylden

Woodend Rd)

LGA 100% MRSC (using the rail corridor)

Section 5 of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail runs from Carlsruhe Station to

Woodend Station. It is approximately 7.0km long. It is mostly flat, with a slight uphill climb of

13m towards the end at Woodend. The existing high speed Melbourne-Bendigo railway

operates along this alignment. Train services can currently travel at speeds of up to 130km/h,

however authorities plan for this to increase to 160km/h. There are no other examples of Rail

Trails in Victoria adjacent to such high speed rail corridors.

As with Section 1, given the ongoing active rail services, the trackbed is obviously not available

for the construction of the rail trail. Therefore alternative options include:

Option 1 – Construct a trail adjacent to the operational rail line, within the operational

Melbourne-Bendigo railway corridor;

Option 2 – Identify an alternate route, using existing roads, tracks or paths, completely

outside the railway corridor;

Option 3 – Exclude this section from the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail altogether.

As with Section 1, Option 1 which involves constructing a new trail adjacent to the train tracks

and within the railway corridor is the preferred position. Once again it is the shortest route

(approximately 6.98km), it fits best within the concept of a rail trail and it provides the

alignment with the most gentle gradients. Furthermore, initial visual inspections (although

constrained by lack of access to the entire corridor) and review of aerial images suggests that

there is likely to be adequate width within the corridor to meet authority requirements for

buffer zones and safety infrastructure. Figure 6 on the next page shows a photo of the typical

buffer area beside the Melbourne to Bendigo rail line.



Figure 6. Buffer between Melbourne to Bendigo rail line and adjacent private property

Option 2 involves using existing roads, tracks or paths. A range of possible alternative route

options have been considered with the following three explored in more detail. It is

acknowledged that there may be quite a number of possible route configurations, including

combinations of the three investigated. Each of the three main options are discussed in

greater detail below.

Option 3 to exclude this section from the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail altogether is

not consistent with the core objectives of Macedon Ranges Shire Council for this project and is

therefore not accepted. Macedon Ranges Shire Council has indicated that a long term

aspiration to one day have a shared use path within the rail corridor linking Woodend to

Kyneton for use as a recreational and commuter pathway by local residents and tourists.

Section 5 of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail will form a large portion of this

potential future route.



Map 6: Section 5 Carlsruhe Station to Woodend Station, including alternative route options.

The three different alternate routes are described below.

Alternate Route 1 is 9.3km long. The average gradient is approximately 2.75%. The route is as

follows (starting at Carlsruhe Station and travelling south towards Woodend):

0km – 0.18km, Carlsruhe Station Rd – Starting from the Carlsruhe Station, on the south

side of the Melbourne Bendigo Railway, where the Daylesford line comes in. Use existing

unsealed road;

0.18km – 0.42km, Thompsons Lane – Use existing unsealed road;

0.42km – 1.33km, Dunbars Rd – Use existing unsealed road. Very rough. Becomes Crows

Rd;

1.33km – 4.73km, Crows Rd – Use existing unsealed/sealed road;

4.73km – 4.98km, Tylden-Woodend Rd. Construct path adjacent to the Tylden-Woodend

Rd. Road reserve is quite wide, with gentle gradients and sparse vegetation;

4.98km – 6.41km, Harpers Rd. Use existing unsealed road;

6.41km – 8.85km, Mahoneys Rd. Use existing unsealed/sealed road;



8.85km – 9.27km, Corinella Rd. Use existing sealed road. Finish at Woodend Train Station.

Alternate Route 2 is 8.83km long. The average gradient is approximately 2.1%. This route

follows the same route as Alternate Route 1 for the first 2.7km. The route is as follows

(starting at Carlsruhe Station and travelling south towards Woodend):

0km – 0.18km, Carlsruhe Station Rd – Starting from the Carlsruhe Station, on the south

side of the Melbourne Bendigo Railway, where the Daylesford line comes in. Use existing

unsealed road;

0.18km – 0.42km, Thompsons Lane – Use existing unsealed road;

0.42km – 1.33km, Dunbars Rd – Use existing unsealed road. Very rough. Becomes Crows

Rd;

1.33km – 2.66km, Crows Rd. Use existing unsealed road;

2.66km – 4.83km, Russell Rd. Use existing sealed road;

4.83km – 8.73km, Calder Highway. Use existing sealed road. Alternately, construct path

adjacent to the Calder Highway. Road reserve is quite wide in many places, with extensive

tree plantings (avenue of honour). This path would also serve as a broader community

facility;

8.73km – 8.83km, Forest St. Use existing sealed road. Finish at Woodend Visitor

Information Centre.

Alternate Route 3 is 8.6km long. The average gradient is approximately 2.1%. The route is as

follows (starting at Carlsruhe Station and travelling south towards Woodend):

0 – 3.17km, Carlsruhe Station Rd – Starting from the Carlsruhe Station, on the south side

of the Melbourne Bendigo Railway, where the Daylesford line comes in. Use existing

unsealed road;

3.17km – 8.6km, Tylden-Woodend Rd. Construct path adjacent to the Tylden-Woodend

Rd. Road reserve is quite wide, with gentle gradients and sparse vegetation. Finish at

Woodend Visitor Information Centre.

Table 2 below provides a high-level assessment of each option having regard to user safety,

likely capital and operational costs, amenity/user experience, consistency with the concept of

a Rail Trail (including product positioning) as well as other advantages or disadvantages of

each.



Table 2: Section 5 Route Options Assessment

Route Option

User Safety (High, Medium,

Low)

Indicative Capital Cost

(High, Medium, Low)

Ongoing Maintenance (High, Medium,

Low)


Consistency with Rail Trail Concept

(High, Medium, Low)

Other Advantages

Other Disadvantages

Summary Comment

Within the active rail corridor.

High Assumes appropriate safety measures including fencing and road crossings.

Very high Including trail construction, fencing, road crossings, bridge over Campaspe River and planning costs.

Medium Including regular inspection of fencing, vegetation management, bridge crossings and path repairs as required.

Concern about the appeal of cycling / walking adjacent to trains travelling at speeds up to 160km/p.h.

High Preferred option for promoting an integrated Rail Trail tourism product.

Most direct and shortest route. Limited grade variation adds to ease of cycling. Off-road, minimal conflict with vehicles. Appears to be adequate width in the existing corridor to establish the trail. May establish a precedent for additional trail connections in the Shire utilising rail corridors.

Requires Council acceptance of legal responsibly for land management and maintenance. Requires comprehensive pre-planning and formal approval process from rail operators / authorities.

Development of a shared use pathway within the active rail corridor remains the 'best fit' option, however it is also likely to attract the highest capital cost and require acceptance of ongoing maintenance and management responsibilities by Council. This option will also require the most complex pre-planning and approvals prior to proceeding.

Alternate Route 1 (brown)

Low Incorporates some sections of busy roads and blind crests along Mahoneys Road. Also requires crossing the busy Tylden-Woodend Rd.

(Relatively) Low Likely to be the lowest cost option, largely established through signage and line marking on existing roads. Some shoulder sealing may be required, subject to detailed investigation.


Although this route maximises use of relatively quite roads, Rail Trail cyclists (i.e. target market) prefer off-road trails. Some sections of existing roads are quite rough and offer limited appeal.

Low. Relatively gentle gradients. Mostly quiet back roads.

Some sections of busy roads. Some moderately steep gradients along Mahoneys Road, with blind crests. Dunbars Rd is very rough, with a creek crossing that is likely to be impassable during winter. A bridge or some type of engineering solution would be required.

This option is not preferred due to concerns regarding user safety and limited appeal of the route.

Alternate Route 2 (purple).

Low - Medium Safety of this route could be improved if a dedicated shared use path could be established off-road within the Calder Highway road reserve.

High Particularly cost of establishing off-road shared use path in the Calder Highway road reserve, as well as shoulder sealing and line marking on other roads. Creek crossing and surface treatments to Dunbars Road are likely to be

Low Once a sealed path is established to appropriate standards, ongoing maintenance costs are likely to be relatively low.

The use of the Calder Highway is not ideal. This road is quite busy (although the majority of the usage of this road occurs within 80km/h and 60km/h speed zones). This road becomes the main street of Woodend and is the main access

Low. Shorter than Alternate Route 1. Includes larger proportion of sealed roads than Alternate Route 1. Mostly gentle gradients. Presents an opportunity to construct a shared use pathway within the road

Dunbars Rd is very rough, with a creek crossing that is likely to be impassable during winter. A bridge or some type of engineering solution would be required.

This option provides limited appeal to likely target markets due to on-road sections and interface with traffic. However if an off-road sealed path could be established within the Calder Highway road reserve corridor this may help overcome this



Route Option

User Safety (High, Medium,

Low)

Indicative Capital Cost

(High, Medium, Low)

Ongoing Maintenance (High, Medium,

Low)


Consistency with Rail Trail Concept

(High, Medium, Low)

Other Advantages

Other Disadvantages

Summary Comment

high cost items. into Woodend from the north.

corridor beside the Calder Highway, which would be a great community asset. Finishes at the Visitor Information Centre.

issue and provide a trail that connects large sections of existing urban areas (e.g. Woodend to Woodend North).

Alternate Route 3 (green).

Medium Assumes establishment of a dedicated shared use pathway beside the Tylden-Woodend Road.

High Including shared use pathway and creek/river crossings.

Low Once a sealed path is established to appropriate standards, ongoing maintenance costs are likely to be relatively low.

Relatively direct route requiring minimal navigation. Assuming a shared use path can be established within the road reserve (but off-road), user experience and amenity is likely to be relatively high.

Low Only two turns, so signage requirements are minimal and navigation is easy. Potential for broad community benefit and use of a dedicated shared use pathway running beside the Tylden-Woodend Rd. Finishes at Woodend Visitor Information Centre.

Large construction element, so high capital cost. Some small creeks and rivers to cross adjacent to the Tylden-Woodend Rd, which would require bridges.

Whilst this option presents the most direct route connecting Woodend to Carlsruhe Station (outside the rail corridor), is would attract a high capital cost and provide limited broad community benefit (i.e. does not connect existing urban areas).

Conclusion:

Despite the likely high capital cost, development of a shared pathway within the active rail corridor

remains the 'best-fit' in terms of a strategic rail trail tourism product between Woodend and Daylesford.

Alternate Route 2 utilising the Calder Highway road reserve may present a viable alternative, however

this is also likely to attract significant capital cost and requires more detailed investigation beyond the

scope of this project. This route may also offer broader benefits for the local community by providing a

safe cycling/walking connection between major urban areas (i.e. Woodend and Woodend North).



13. Staged Implementation A staged approach to development of the rail trail is proposed. This allows for the rail trail to

be constructed and opened section by section. Each section has been described in the

previous chapter. While one section is being constructed, the planning, detailed design and

fund raising for the next section can occur simultaneously.

This approach has the added advantage that construction can commence on key segments,

providing unique experiences in their own right, whilst incrementally advancing the overall

vision for the rail trail. Once each stage is complete it can be opened for use, which will help

showcase the concept to the local community as well as potential funding partners. Usage

data can begin to be gathered and management capabilities, processes and experience

refined.

The recommended order of staging is:

1. Stage 1 – Section 3, Lyonville to Trentham

With this section already open and only requiring some minor resurfacing works, bridge works

and signage (incorporating DMRT and Domino Trail branding), it provides the easiest section

to implement. Minimal approvals or permissions will be required to commence on this section

and it should also comprise one of the least cost stages.

2. Stage 2 – Section 2, Bullarto to Lyonville

At just over 3km in length, this section is the shortest and should be fairly straight-forward to

implement. There will be no leasing issues to be resolved other than possible

fencing/encroachment issues where adjacent landholders have fenced across the railway

corridor.

3. Stage 3 – Section 4, Trentham to Carlsruhe Station

Section 4 is the longest section and will require a significant construction project. As most of

the actual railway corridor in this section appears to be vacant, gaining access to the land

should not be a major impediment. However discussions may be required with adjacent

landholders who may have inadvertently fenced across the railway corridor.

4. Stage 4 – Section 1, Daylesford to Bullarto

This section should ideally be constructed within the Daylesford Spa Country Railway corridor.

This stage has been deliberately scheduled towards the end of the implementation program in

order to provide more time to work through the complex operational issues and further

detailed design investigations. Approvals to construct a rail trail within the rail corridor will

require substantial planning and consultation with VicTrack and Daylesford Spa Country

Railway, beyond the scope of this project. This remains one of the most important sections of



the entire proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail, as it provides the critical linkage to

Daylesford. If the preferred route within the railway corridor cannot be achieved, then the

next preferred option (on-road) can be pursued for implementation.

5. Stage 5 – Section 5, Carlsruhe Station to Woodend

Similar to above, Section 5 has been scheduled towards the end of the implementation period

as it is believed to be the most complex in terms of the planning and approval requirements.

Throughout the implementation of the project, it is important to ensure that all signage and

communications deliver a consistent message that the project is to be implemented in stages.

At end of each completed section signage should be installed stating the intended

construction date of the adjacent section.

In line with Macedon Ranges Shire Council aspirations, future stages could consider extension

of the shared-use pathways within the active rail corridor to provide a continuous connection

between Clarkefield to Malmsbury (incorporating the Woodend to Carlsruhe Station section of

the DMRT). Please refer to Appendix 1.



14. Use of the Operational Rail Corridor The recommended route for the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail in Section 1 and

Section 5 is within the corridor of an operational railway. In Section 1 it is the Daylesford Spa

Country Railway and in Section 5 it is the Melbourne to Bendigo Railway. It is acknowledged

up-front that formal approval for access and use of these sections will be required from Vic

Track, existing rail operators and relevant agencies. A comprehensive risk assessment,

technical audit and formal application process will be required to be implemented prior to

possible approval by the relevant authorities.

Vic Track has emphasised that it is unable to provide any form of approval until such times as

clearances have been received from each of the transport businesses which includes Vic Track

property (where the land is leased to other parties); Department of Transport, Public

Transport Victoria and the rail operators (Vline and the Tourist and Heritage Rail operator)

being the land managers for the purposes of rail operations.

While both of these sections present greater challenges for construction than the other

sections where the railway has been decommissioned, both sections appear to have the

capacity to accommodate a shared use pathway within the railway corridor. Some alignment

challenges exist in sections where the railway is built up on high embankments or crosses over

watercourses, but these issues can largely be resolved through the use of typical trail

construction techniques (e.g. boardwalks, bridges, elevated causeways etc). The exact route

in both these sections will need to be carefully resolved in detailed planning with relevant

authorities having regard to the operational, management and safety requirements.

Notwithstanding the challenges and approval requirements associated with these sections,

MRSC in particular is keen to pursue the establishment of shared user pathways within the

active rail corridor along the entire length from Clarkefield to Malmsbury, with the section

from Woodend Station to Carlsruhe Station forming part of the overall Daylesford-Macedon

Ranges rail trail product. Establishing a shared user pathway within the rail corridor would

assist MRSC to connect almost 85% of the Shire using off-road trails.

The Action Plan presented in chapter 22 outlines the approval and planning steps required by

Vic Track prior to development within the rail corridor, including:

Consultation with Vic Track, rail operators and relevant authorities to achieve in-principle

support for the concept.

Detailed Risk Assessment of the proposed route (indicative cost $5-$8k).

Detailed Technical Assessment of the proposed route (indicative cost $5-$8k).

Assessment of possible bridge crossings or alternative route options (construction cost

implications to be determined).

Establishment of an appropriate license agreement (may incur legal costs).



Establishment of detailed construction designs for the proposed pathway, including road

crossings and barrier fencing (indicative costs $10-$15k, NB: detailed designs for new or

modified bridge crossings may incur additional costs).

Construction of the proposed pathway (indicative costs $770,000 i.e. from Woodend

Station to Carlsruhe Station, pending outcomes from assessments outlined above).

Rail Trails Australia’s ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines' provides the following information

relating to ‘Rails-with-Trails’, their name for situations such as this where a trail is built beside

an operational railway:

'Rails-with-Trails or rail-side trails offer the chance to extend the rail trail

experience by having trails besides an operating railway where the right-of-way

permits this.

Many suburban railway lines have rail side trails besides them in Melbourne, Perth

and Sydney, which we understand are on railway land though managed by

councils. As far as we are aware there are no rail side trails running besides

operating government railways outside urban areas.

The Bellarine Peninsula Rail Trail, near Geelong, is a popular rail trail and it runs

besides the operating steam tourist railway for half its length.

This rail side trail concept is becoming increasingly important in Victoria as rail

corridors are now regarded as transport corridors that should be used for other

forms of transport including walking and riding. Rail Trails Australia is on a

committee with the Victorian Department of Transport to develop standards for

rail side trails besides tourist railways.

Obviously safety and liability must be considered but precedents have been set,

even besides busy suburban railways.’

As part of the planning process for this project an initial meeting has been held with

representatives of Vic Track, VLine and PTV (Public Transport Victoria) in order to discuss

options, requirements and possible in-principle support for access to the active rail corridor.

Key outcomes from this meeting included:

VLine’s default position is NOT to authorise access to the rail corridor for a shared

pathway.

However, subject to a formal application process, including comprehensive Risk

Assessment and Technical Analysis, authority may be granted. If granted, consideration

needs to be given to:



o Fencing the shared pathway, allowing 3m buffer from the closest active rail plus

sufficient width for VLine maintenance vehicles, then fencing. The area from the

fence line to boundary of the active corridor could potentially be available for a

shared pathway.

o Fencing needs to be developed in accordance with VLine standards (costs are to

be borne by Council).

o Need to consider cost allowance for road crossing treatments to relevant

standards, or alternative treatment (i.e. diverting the trail to roads on approach to

rail crossings).

o (NB: VLine advised that pedestrian crossings generally cost in the order of $250k

each. There are at least two crossings on the current active line from Woodend to

Carlsruhe station).

o Adequate river crossing over the Campaspe River (cost to be determined).

o Management and leasing arrangements (i.e. lease/license with MRSC).

o Acceptance by MRSC of ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the shared

pathway.

o Acknowledge that the shared pathway may be impacted upon by any future

requirement for extension of the active rail (i.e. additional rail line), therefore

alternative options (likely to be on-road) will need to be available in case required

for future use.

o Consider locations and potential impacts on existing utilities and services (above

and below ground).

A high-level assessment of possible alternative routes will be required in order to

demonstrate why the Rail Corridor is considered the preferred route (i.e. as presented in

Table 2).

The formal application process and (later) detailed design/construction drawings will incur

a range of application fees and technical report costs (likely to be in the order to $10-

$15k).



15. Infrastructure Requirements The following section considers requirements for bridges, fencing and signage.

Bridges:

Rail Trails Australia’s ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines' provides the following information

about bridges on rail trails:

‘Bridges add greatly to the interest of a rail trail but are potentially the most costly

pieces of infrastructure. Ideally your trail has a few bridges that have concrete

supports, steel or concrete girders and a concrete deck requiring only some

handrails to be fitted. However the odds are that the bridges will be any

combination of wood, steel and concrete, in various stages of deterioration or

have been removed altogether.

A report on the state of all bridges, works required to make them safe and/or

trafficable and this cost should be obtained. All bridges should be checked by

qualified people and costs obtained to bring them up to standard required by

regulations. If the cost of these works is beyond available funding the options of

diversions or low level crossings has to be investigated. These are generally

undesirable as they detract from the rail trail experience particularly long

diversions or short and steep low level crossings. Though sometimes a long low

level crossing provides an opportunity to really appreciate the bridge, especially

the old wooden trestle bridges. One example is the Nowa Nowa trestle bridge on

the East Gippsland Rail Trail in Victoria.‘

There are several bridges within the study area that fall within this category (i.e. require

significant refurbishment in order to be trafficable for the rail trail). The preferred option

where practical is for the original rail bridges to remain in place, however in the short term

alternative track diversions are likely to be required.

Where a bridge has been removed altogether or is deemed to be completely beyond

refurbishment, either a diversion trail (least preferred) or a new bridge (most preferred) is

required. Bicycle Network (BN) provided the following indicative costs for bridges based on

their experience with other rail trail projects. While the costs generally increase with

increasing bridge span, the cost to design and construct a 2.5m wide, modern bridge capable

of carrying typical rail trail traffic is about $3,500 per metre (even for spans up to 50-60m). So,

a 50m bridge would cost around $175,000, while a 20m bridge might cost around $70,000.

As it was not possible to survey the entire proposed route of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges

Rail Trail as part of this project, the exact number, length and condition of bridges is not

known.



However, the CHRTWG provided a report from a previous investigation undertaken by

Integrity Testing Pty Ltd on the Domino Trail bridges near Trentham during August 2009. This

report reached the following conclusions about the six bridges it investigated:

The Coliban Bridge looks feasible to be incorporated into a foot bridge but the structural

elements will require verifying and testing to their respective capacity.

Bridge Two a similar comment applies, however the rail reinforced deck presents a

stronger option to be retained as a trail bridge, though the hand rails will need up grading.

Bridge Three has failed and given that there is a by-pass should be fenced off and

permanently closed.

Bridge Four a culvert is sufficient.

Bridge Five the original rail deck to be divided from the present foot bridge by an internal

balustrade. The cantilever foot bridge needs testing to verify that it is suitable for

pedestrian traffic.

Bridge Six. The prevention fences need to be up graded to prevent further access to the

bridge deck.

Figure 7: Coliban River Bridge.

There is least one other large bridge that will need assessment, the bridge over the Little

Coliban River near Rippers Lane in Tylden. This bridge is shown in Figure 8 below.



Figure 8: Little Coliban River Bridge will require assessment prior to use on the DMRT.

Map 7: Locations of known bridges.



Fencing:

Rail Trails Australia’s ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines’ provides the following information

about fencing along rail trails:

‘Fencing along rail trails appears to be a case by case nature. Most trails in

Victoria are fenced when abutting private land which keeps stock in the right place

and discourages trespassing. This also gives the options of temporary agistment

of stock in some sections to keep vegetation under control and to assist adjacent

farmers. Many trails or some sections of them are regarded as natural heritage

areas so livestock are not permitted at all. The rail trail usually pays for fencing

alongside crown land if required and some rail trails have also assisted adjacent

private landholders with fencing, typically by providing materials.

There are many different methods of limiting unauthorised access to rail trails.

Cars are relatively simple to exclude with little inconvenience to trail users as they

can only usually get on at road crossings and are wide vehicles. Keeping out trail

bikes at road intersections requires more elaborate and expensive devices that

often inconvenience trail users. Furthermore, if trail bikes can enter the Rail Trail

at other parts of the trail (which is usually the case) these measures are relatively

superfluous. It may be more effective to actively police the trail when problems

occur as usually the offenders are locals.’

The fencing requirements for the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail are hard to

assess until a complete physical assessment of the entire route can be done. Fencing will be

required for a number of reasons along the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail:

To separate the rail trail corridor from adjacent leasehold, freehold or public land on

either side of the trail.

To provide a physical barrier between the rail trail and the active railways in Section 1 and

Section 5.

Signage:

Signage is an important component of a successful trail network. It performs an important risk

management function of informing trail users about potential risks they will encounter along

the trail. Effective signage aids navigation and can also be an important tool for educating

users about specific risk issues, proper behaviour, designated uses and local flora/fauna.

In 2004 Rail Trails Australia released a document titled ‘Signage Development For Rail Trails’.

This should be referred to as the guiding document on signage requirements for the proposed

Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail.



Signage along rail trails consists of a number of different types of signs. Some of the key

points from the Rail Trails Australia guide are summarised here:

Regulatory Sign

Identifies legal responsibilities of trail users. For example, ‘no trailbikes’.

Warning Sign

Advises trail users of known hazards, necessary for trail safety. For example, ‘road ahead’.

Behavioural Sign

Indications of trail courtesy, aimed at avoiding conflict between users and encouraging co-

operative behaviour. For example, ‘move off the trail when stopped’.

Information Sign

Provides information to individual trail users that:

o Assists in their orientation and navigation to destinations. For example,

‘Queenscliff Station 15 km’.

o Enhances their effective use of the trail. For example, ‘gravel surface next 10

kms’.

Marker Signs may also be required to assist with emergency management (i.e..

identification of reference points locating where you are within the overall trail).

Interpretative Sign

Provides descriptive information to identify and inform the trail user. Typical examples

include historic sites, locations of historic events, areas of ecological environmental or

geological significance, significant flora and fauna and significant vistas. For example,

‘Walhalla Goldfields Rail Trail Site of Derailment – 1915’.

Cultural heritage interpretive signs.

Promotional Sign

Provides information advertising businesses or organisations who may have contributed

to, or stand to gain financially from the rail trail. For example, ‘Clare Cottage Bed and

Breakfast’.

Temporary Sign

Provides information of a temporary nature. For example, ‘Bridge Closed for Repairs’.

Furthermore, it also suggests the development of a specific logo for individual Rail Trails

and provides guidance for how it should be used.



The Rail Trails Australia signage guide should be referred to when developing the overall

signage strategy for this project.

Other infrastructure:

A range of other infrastructure may be required as the rail trail develops over time including

park furniture (i.e. seating), drinking taps and public toilets. However in the short-medium

term these items are considered a low priority, particularly given the availability of public

toilets and drinking water at existing and former train stations (e.g. Woodend, Trentham,

Bullarto, Lyonville and Daylesford).

16. Proposed Management Model Rail Trails Australia’s ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines' suggests that management models

vary from state to state and even between rail trails in the same state. The guide suggests:

'The biggest factor is usually the interest of the local Councils(s). Even with full

council involvement in the management, consider establishing a “Friends of the

Rail Trail” group.

Victoria has the most advanced rail trail network in Australia and many of these

trails now have local volunteer friends groups to assist with maintenance and

events. It helps give a sense of community ownership of the trail, which amongst

other things may deter vandalism and provides good local promotion. Any group

should be incorporated, which is generally a prerequisite for receiving any grants

and some donations.

It has been our observation that totally volunteer groups developing a rail trail of

more than a few kilometres in length make very slow progress without a paid

position to source funding, manage donations of labour and materials

etc...generally the greater the local (and sometimes state) government

involvement the better the result.'

All railway land in Victoria is owned by the government corporation Vic Track. Vic Track no

longer surrender unused railway land back to the Crown so all new rail trails will be on land

leased from Vic Track. All examples to date have been leased to Councils including Rutherglen

to Wahgunyah and Murchison to Rushworth.

The usual situation is Vic Track will retain ownership of the land and lease it to a local Council

(or license within the active rail corridor) for the purpose of establishing a rail trail. Local

Council's will then generally work with a Friends Group to plan and construct the trail. A range

of protocols and operational procedures can be put in place to maximise the role of the



volunteer groups in supporting ongoing management and maintenance, however legal

responsibility ultimately rests with the lessee.

The Murray to Mountains Rail Trail in northeast Victoria is frequently looked at as one of the

most successful rail trails in Victoria, if not Australia and provides an excellent model for the

proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail. The Murray to Mountains Rail Trail crosses

over three municipalities – Alpine Shire, Indigo Shire and the Rural City of Wangaratta. The

trail includes 94km of dedicated, off-road, sealed asphalt rail trail and some on-road linkages.

Around 40% of the trail is within the Alpine Shire, about 20% in Indigo Shire and about 40%

within the Rural City of Wangaratta.

The Murray to Mountains Rail Trail is managed by a Committee of Management established

under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978. The committee is comprised of representatives

from each of the three Council's. This committee also includes three sub-committees to

provide input and expertise on specific areas. These are:

User Group Sub-committee, including representatives of bike clubs and the cycling

community.

Cycle tourism Sub-committee, including representatives from the local tourism association

(it appears that this sub-committee may not exist anymore, with the cycle tourism

function moved into the regional tourism association).

Technical Sub-committee, including council engineers and maintenance personnel from

each council.

In summary, it is recommended that a similar model be applied to the proposed Daylesford

Macedon Ranges Rail Trail, with both Macedon Ranges Shire Council and Hepburn Shire

Council being the main representatives on a dedicated Committee of Management, and taking

formal maintenance responsibilities. With a strong local working group under the CHRTWG, it

is essential that this group is also included in the management structure. This could be

achieved through a number of options:

Formal representation on the main Committee of Management, or

Formal representation on a Sub-committee reporting to the Committee of Management

(this option is preferred as the main Committee of Management should primarily involve

those agencies with legal responsibility for the land).

Each Council will be required to develop and adopt an Operations Manual (or similar) outlining

core maintenance tasks, schedules and responsibilities. Furthermore, the Operations Manual

will need to consider policy and management protocols for issues such as (but not limited to)

fire danger, emergency access, stock crossing, vehicle access, vegetation management, etc.



17. Design Guidelines Rail Trails Australia’s ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines' provides the following information

about the actual design and construction of rail trails:

'One of the most important decisions, as generally trail surfacing is the biggest

cost in construction of a rail trail apart from bridges. Many factors to consider,

including the amount and type of users to be attracted, available construction

budget and maintenance budget. If used by cyclists the trail surface should be a

minimum of 2.5m and preferably 3m wide if practical.

(If the trail is to be used by horses) ideally a separate dirt path besides the main

trail should be provided for horses where the corridor permits this. Horses and

riders prefer the separate path, especially if the main trail is very hard, it reduces

maintenance on the main trail and separates bikes and horses. With long distance

horse trails watering facilities must also be considered and some trails even have

holding yards.‘

Interpreting and building on this information, the project team recommends the following

specifications for the design and construction of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail, in

those areas where the trail will be constructed on the actual track bed of the old railway:

1. Equestrian: Horse use of the Rail Trail is not proposed in the first instance, however

could be considered for certain sections in the longer term. If the trail is to cater for

use by horses it should be via a separate dirt path beside the main rail trail.

(Analysis of Rail Trails Australia's website shows that 15 of 26 rail trails in regional

Victoria and 2 of 11 in the Melbourne region allow horse riding on or adjacent to rail

trails).

There are many good reasons to separate horses from the main rail trail:

The impact of horses on the actual tread of the trail is much greater than

pedestrians or cyclists. Heavy usage by horses can break up a compacted crushed

rock surface in time, causing the surface to become loose and rough.

Horses are easily spooked by cyclists and can be dangerous to both their riders

and other trail users. A separate trail for horses is in the best safety interests of all

trail users.

Droppings from horses can be messy and unpleasant for other trail users to deal

with.

2. Trail Width: The width of the trail should be 3m where possible, narrowing to 2.5m if

necessary. This may be dictated by the width of the actual trackbed or there may be

instances where narrow cuttings or raised embankments make achieving a 3m width

not feasible. 3m is considered wide enough for 1-2 pedestrians or cyclists to travel



side by side, and still allow room for another trail user to pass comfortably on the

other side.

3. Trail Surface: While there are a few examples of asphalt surfaced rail trails, the

normal model is for the trail to be surfaced with gravel or fine crushed rock. The use

of asphalt can drastically reduce the cost of ongoing maintenance, however it also

significantly increases the initial cost of construction. Development of a crushed rock

surface is considered appropriate for the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail.

Ideally, the trail surface should be comprised of two layers of material, specifically the

wearing course (the upper layer) and the base course (the lower layer).

In areas where the track ballast remains in place and is stable and flat, it may suffice as

the base course. If there is no track ballast in place, then a new base course should be

laid. The base course should be approximately 100mm thick (uncompacted) and

properly compacted by appropriate mechanical means (e.g. drum roller or vibrating

plate compactor). Typically, the base course may have a maximum aggregate size of

up to 30-40mm. A typical product that is used for base course is called ‘road base’ and

varies from location to location, depending on what is available. Road base costs vary,

but are typically around $30 per cubic metre. Over a 100m stretch of trail, at 3m

width and 100mm depth equates to approximately 30m3 (or about 48 tonne) of base

course material.

The wearing course is the upper layer, and the surface upon which people walk or

ride. The wearing course should be laid approximately 50mm thick (uncompacted)

and properly compacted by appropriate mechanical means (e.g. drum roller or

vibrating plate compactor). It should have good compaction qualities and exhibit good

traction once laid and compacted. The maximum aggregate size should be no more

than 20mm, as larger aggregate is less likely to compact properly, becoming loose and

slippery to walk or ride on. A typical product that is used for the wearing course is

granitic sand. It is best to choose the wearing course from what is available locally to

keep costs down. A suitable product available within reasonably close proximity is a

product referred to as Waubra Granitic Sand. It is quarried at Waubra, approximately

60km west of Daylesford and costs approximately $50 per cubic metre (including

cartage costs to the general area). Over a 100m stretch of trail, at 3m width and

50mm depth, approximately 15m3 (or about 22.5 tonne) of wearing course material is

required.

4. Trail Profile: The profile of the trail is its appearance in cross-section. Typically, the

trail should be built with a gentle, rounded or convex profile. That is, it should be

higher in the middle than on both edges. This slight mounding of the trail allows it to

shed water off to the sides. The mounding should be almost unnoticeable, perhaps

10-20mm higher in the middle at most, creating an almost imperceptible slope



towards the outside edges of the trail. Achieving this in practice requires specialized

machinery and experience and is critical to ensuring proper drainage off the trail. The

original track bed of the railway will most likely exhibit a plateau type profile – flat

across the top and tapering away on the sides to drainage ditches – which will support

the mounded trail profile well.

In some rare situations however, a mounded or convex profile is not ideal. Where the

trail is cut into a steep side slope it may be better to direct all water towards the lower

side of the trail, rather than directing it equally to both sides of the trail. This is

achieved by implementing a trail profile that is straight, but slightly angled towards

the lower edge of the trail. Again, this angle should be very slight – so slight as to be

virtually unnoticeable to the trail user. This needs to be assessed on a case-by-case

basis, as in most instances the original railway would have been built with drainage

measures in place to deal with the water.

5. Trail Gradient: The trail gradient will be dictated by the existing track bed of the

original railway. Most railways were designed and constructed to keep the track

gradient at 1 in 40, or in rare cases 1 in 30. This equates to 2.5% and 3.3%

respectively, which to most people would appear almost flat and level. These

gradients are within acceptable boundaries for wheelchair usage. Any access trails or

alternate routes should ideally try to maintain the same low gradients.

6. Vegetation: The surrounding vegetation should be trimmed back to create a corridor

that is at least as wide as the trail and approximately 3m high and maintained

accordingly. Any vegetation that protrudes into the actual trail corridor can influence

the behaviour of trail users. For example, a low hanging branch may force trail users

towards the outside edge of the rail trail, where the edges may be less stable,

resulting in damage to the tread. Vegetation can also cause injury to trail users. Thick

vegetation growing along the edges of a trail, particularly on a bend, can also limit

forward visibility for trail users, increasing the chance of collisions. Requirements for

vegetation management and maintenance will need to be considered following a

detailed vegetation assessment and management plan for the trail corridor.

7. Road Crossing Treatments: Where the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail

Trail crosses over roads, appropriate infrastructure to slow down trail users will need

to be installed. These treatments are in essence physical barriers such as bollards and

turnstiles that cannot easily be negotiated at speed by cyclists or runners, causing

them to slow down as they approach the road. Vic Roads and Bicycle Network can

provide further advice on best practice road crossing treatments in this regard. This

infrastructure also serves a secondary purpose of preventing vehicular access to the

rail trail corridor.



In those areas where the rail trail may eventually run beside operational railways (i.e. Section

1 and Section 5), the trail will require more extensive design and construction, as it will not

have the track bed of the old railway to use. In these areas, the exact trail alignment should

be determined by expert trail designers following detailed field investigations and consultation

with VicTrack and Daylesford Spa Country Railway and other relevant stakeholders.

Furthermore, in these areas, the specifications above apply, however additional

considerations include:

1. Trail Width: It may not be possible to achieve the same 3m width, as these sections

will not have a dedicated track bed to follow. Native vegetation, waterways, property

boundaries and other physical constraints may limit the available width. The trail

should be no narrower than 2m.

2. Drainage: The trail should not substantially alter the surface flow of water and should

not direct any concentrated flow of water towards the railway or any railway

infrastructure.

3. Trail Gradient: While the general goal in designing the exact alignment for Section 1

and Section 5 should be to maintain similar gradients to the rest of the rail trail (that

is, generally less than 3.3%), in reality this will not be possible without very extensive

and very costly earthworks. An alignment should be determined with trail gradients

below 5-8% at all times.

Road Crossing Treatments:

The project team has identified at least twenty-one roads which the proposed Daylesford

Macedon Ranges Rail Trail will need to cross. Most of these are minor rural roads, usually

unsealed and carrying very little traffic, however there are three major road crossings that

have been identified. The treatment of these road crossings, with regard to signage and other

infrastructure, is critical to the safety of trail users and needs to be carefully assessed.

Austroads is the association of all Australian road transport and traffic authorities. Austroads

promote improved transport outcomes by providing expert technical input to national policy

development on road and road transport issues.

In 2010, VicRoads adopted the latest Austroads guidelines for use in Victoria. These guidelines

are arranged into several series. The most relevant guides for cycling are:

Guide to Road Design:

o Part 2: Design Considerations

o Part 4: Intersections and Crossings

o Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths

o Part 6B: Roadside Environment

Guide to Traffic Management:



o Part 4: Network Management;

o Part 5: Road Management;

o Part 6: Intersections, Interchanged and Crossings;

o Part 7: Traffic Management in Activity Centres.

VicRoads publish a series of information bulletins on design standards for cycling

infrastructure called ‘Cycling Notes’. Much of the information in the bulletins is also contained

within the new Austroads guides, however these bulletins and guidelines provide additional

advice and information. One of these bulletins, ‘Cycle Notes No. 16, August 2005, Safe Road

Crossings for Off-Road Paths’, provides the basis for the information presented here on the

best treatment for road crossings on the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail.

This document presents a number of different treatment types, for different scenarios. The

most likely crossing type that will be used for the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail is the

General Crossing Treatment. The usage of this treatment is summarized below:

General crossing treatments involve paths effectively terminating when they reach

a road and then recommencing on the other side of the road.

Who has priority?

At general crossing treatments, motorists have priority over path users. Path users

must give way to motorists and are required to wait until a suitable gap appears in

the traffic stream before they can cross.

Motorists should be advised that there is a crossing ahead with the erection of

signs indicating that bicycles cross ahead.

Application

General crossing treatments are a suitable treatment for roads that carry less than

3,000 vehicles per day. These include local roads, collector roads and low volume,

rural highways.

It is critical that adequate sight distances are provided to enable path users to

safely choose gaps in the traffic stream and for motorists to know that the path is

ahead.

It is also important to consider the inclusion of bicycle hand rails and cyclist/

pedestrian refuges to assist cyclists in crossing the road.

Figure 1 below illustrates the key requirements of a General Crossing Treatment. Some key

features to note are that the only infrastructure required is signs (for both motorists and trail



users) and hand or holding rails. The use of bollards and chicanes and other barrier-type

infrastructure is no longer supported.

Figure 1. Figure 4 from Vic Roads Cycle notes No. 16: Safe Road Crossings for Off-road paths

Figure 2 on the next page shows an example of one of these treatments in place on the

Murray to Mountains Rail Trail. This example has quite extensive hand rails in place. These

hand rails serve multiple purposes:

1. They act as hand rails for cyclists to lean against while waiting for vehicles to pass;

2. They act as a visual reminder that users are approaching a road crossing;

3. They funnel trail users into single file, likely causing faster trail users like cyclists to slow

down;

4. They prevent vehicle access to the rail trail.

Figure 2. Road crossing on Murray to Mountains Rail Trail (photo from Bicycle Network)



18. Estimated Development Costs

Bicycle Network (BN) and the Central Highlands Rail Trail Working Group (CHRTWG) have

suggested a preliminary budget estimate of $4.5 to $5 million to develop the Daylesford

Macedon Ranges Rail Trail. This is based on the estimated 43km length of the trail and BN’s

experience that rail trails generally cost around $100,000 per kilometre. For example, the

134km Goulburn River High Country Rail Trail project received $13 million in Federal funding

and $1 million State in funding. This $100,000 per km cost provides an indicative allowance

for trail construction (including basic drainage, earthworks and surfacing) as well as minor

bridge works and crossings. It does not include allowance for any additional specialist

planning, including vegetation assessments or detailed design works.

In addition to the trail construction, the following items need to be factored into any price

estimates:

Cost of further planning, design and approval requirements prior to construction, including

native vegetation assessments.

Road crossing treatments.

Bridge repairs/construction (including engineering assessments and design).

Signage.

Two different types of trail construction will be required for the entire project. These can be

described as:

1. Machine built trail, 100mm base course, 50mm wearing course, 3m width, on existing

track bed. Typical industry costs for this type of construction are estimated at

approximately $90 per metre of trail, including all materials (as discussed in previous

section). This type of construction will be used in those areas where the proposed

Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail will be constructed on the existing trackbed of

the old railway.

2. Machine built trail, 100mm base course, 50mm wearing course, 2.5m width, built on

undisturbed natural ground surface. Typical industry costs for this type of

construction are estimated at approximately $110 per metre, including all materials

(as discussed previously). This type of construction will be used in those areas where

the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail will not be constructed on the

existing trackbed of the old railway (that is, Section 1 and Section 5, where the

preferred long-term option for the trail is to be built beside the operational railway).

Table 3 on the next page shows the estimated trail construction costs.



Table 3. Trail Construction Cost Estimate

Section Length (km) Cost per metre Cost Estimate % each LGA

1 (within the rail corridor) 9.4 $110.00 $1,034,000 100% HSC

2 3.7 $90.00 $333,000 100% HSC

3 6.3 $90.00 $567,000 100% HSC

4 17.4 $90.00 $1,566,000 44% HSC, 56%

MRSC

5 (within the rail corridor) 7 $110.00 $770,000 100% MRSC

TOTAL 43.8 $4,270,000 62% HSC

38% MRSC

Table 4. Allowance for Other Costs

Item Quantity Allowance Comment

Road Crossing treatments

21 min. (21 x $2,500 ea) = $52,500

NB: This does not include allowance for road crossing within the active rail corridor. Treatment requirements for these crossings will be subject to the proposed detailed Technical Assessment.

Rail Trail Signage

NA $50,000 Final signage costs will be influenced by the final confirmed route (i.e. within or outside the rail corridor in Sections 1 & 5) as well as the scope of interpretive information to be developed. The adjacent figure is to be used as a guide only.

Bridges TBC TBC Cost estimates for bridge works will be subject to engineering assessment and Technical Assessment of active rail sections.

Other Planning 1 $30,000 Engineering Assessment of existing bridges.

1 $50,000 Detailed construction documentation.

3 $5,000 each Risk Assessments of entire route (for Vic Track).

2 $14,000 Technical Assessments of active rail sections (for Vic Track).

1 $50,000 Native vegetation assessment for entire route.

Marketing & Promotion

NA $22,000 Recommended funding for initial 3 years. $5,000 per annum thereafter.

TOTAL

$283,500



Total indicative capital costs:

Trail Construction $4,270,000

Allowance for other items $283,500

Total $4,553,500 (ex GST)

It should be noted that these are indicative cost estimates only, based on approximate

industry rates. The estimates do not include GST or any expenses which a contractor would

typically charge (e.g. mobilization expenses, accommodation etc.).

Costs for bridge infrastructure and results from the active rail corridor Risk Assessment and

Technical Assessments are yet to be determined.

The table below provides an indicative breakdown of likely costs apportioned to each

municipality. It should be noted that this does not mean that each LGA will be solely

responsible for all capital costs as external grants and funding should be pursued. Experience

from other rail trails suggests that external funding (i.e. Federal and State Government) may

contribute in the order of 50%-75% of total project costs.

Hepburn Shire Council indicative costs:

Section / Item Estimated Construction Cost

Approx. % HSC Total Cost HSC

1 $1,034,000 100% $1,034,000

2 $333,000 100% $333,000

3 $567,000 100% $567,000

4 $1,566,000 44% $689,040

5 $770,000 Nil Nil

Allowance for other

costs (as above)

$283,500 62% $175,770

Total $4,553,500 $2,798,810

Macedon Ranges Shire Council indicative costs:

Section / Item Estimated Construction Cost

Approx. % MRSC Total Cost MRSC

1 $1,034,000 Nil Nil

2 $333,000 Nil Nil

3 $567,000 Nil Nil

4 $1,566,000 56% $876,960

5 $770,000 100% $770,000

Allowance for other

costs (as above)

$283,500 38% $107,730

Total $4,553,500 $1,754,690



19. Maintenance Maintenance is an important consideration for rail trails. The ongoing cost of maintaining the

proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail needs to be factored into the decision making

process from the outset.

The Murray to Mountains Rail Trail provides some key learning's about maintenance:

The original funding for construction of the rail trail was a combination of Federal, State

and Local Government funding. The funding was provided under the proviso that each of

the Councils would agree to maintain the trail, at their own cost, for seven years. This

seven year commitment is now well and truly past, however each council continues to

maintain the trail where it passes through their municipality, using their own in-house

personnel mostly and contractors less frequently.

Alpine Shire report that they spend approximately $30,000 annually on maintenance.

Wangaratta City spends about the same amount. Indigo Shire's spending is much less, as

they manage a smaller portion. This money is an ongoing recurrent expenditure item. In

total, it is likely that the overall annual maintenance bill amounts to around $75,000.

In places, the Murray to Mountains Rail Trail is only 1.5m wide, which is acknowledged as

being too narrow. In addition to ongoing maintenance works, the trail is also being

incrementally widened.

The Murray to Mountains Rail Trail has an asphalt seal across its entire length. Alpine

Shire claim that it reduces their ongoing maintenance liability (that is, the re-surfacing

frequency for an asphalt trail is much lower than that of a gravel trail) and opens the trail

up to a wider user audience.

Additional patch-ups of the asphalt seal are done from time-to-time when nearby road

projects have surplus asphalt.

There are a large number of factors that will influence the level of maintenance required

including levels of use, initial construction standards and materials used, climatic conditions

and vandalism to name a few. Given the early planning stages for this project, it is difficult to

provide an accurate likely maintenance figure. However, based on examples from elsewhere

(e.g. Murray to Mountains Rail Trail and other trail projects) suggests an amount of 1-3% of

the initial capital cost should be applied to ongoing annual maintenance. On this basis, the

annual maintenance is likely to be in the order of $42,700 - $128,100 for the fully constructed

trail (split approximately 62% HSC and 38% MRSC, based on the estimated trail construction

cost of $4.27million (refer to Section 18).

Maintenance costs will also be impacted on by required vegetation management. Costs for

vegetation maintenance will be informed by a detailed vegetation assessment and detailed

designs for the actual path construction (i.e. route within the corridor). Pending the outcomes



from these two steps, annual vegetation maintenance costs could be in the order of $50,000

(split approximately 62% HSC and 38% MRSC).

The maintenance figures should be considered a broad guide only and will need to be

reviewed pending development of a detailed Asset Management/Maintenance Plan for the

rail trail once constructed.

20. Trail Promotion and Marketing The following promotional material will be critical to marketing the proposed rail trail.

Brand Pyramid:

Prepare a brand pyramid for the route that identifies the emotional connectors between

the trail and its visitors (what will motivate people to cycle the route, what they are

seeking in the experience, etc). The ‘brand essence’ identified through this process can be

used to inform the selection of language, graphic design features and imagery that would

be used to promote the trail to ensure that promotional activities are consistent in the

story they tell and the impressions they create.

Graphic Design Elements:

Develop graphic design elements - a logo, e-signature feature (for use in emails sent by

stakeholders and local businesses and organisations interested in promoting the trail), and

6-8 high quality images.

Brochure / Map:

Include the rail trail in cycling brochures included in the region.

Prior to the next reprint, prepare a DL flyer to stock in visitor information centres, bicycle

shops, accommodation properties, etc.

Websites:

Prepare a dedicated website for the rail trail (there are many examples of quality rail trail

sites in Victoria). Promote the trail on regional tourism, Shire and local community

websites with a click-through to the comprehensive site.

Include information about the attractions, facilities, accommodation, events, etc. available

enroute, as well as touring times, degrees of difficulty, etc. to assist people to develop a

customised itinerary to suit their needs.

Feature the route in the relevant regional sections of the visitvictoria website, including

Daylesford and the Macedon Ranges section.



Consider promoting the route in the Ballarat and Bendigo tourism websites, and Bicycle

Tourism Network’s website.

Publicity:

Through Daylesford and Macedon Ranges Tourism, invite travel journalists and journalists

from cycle magazines such as Ride On, to experience the route and write about their

journey. Alternatively, as part of regional tourism activities, contract a PR agency to

prepare editorial and place articles.

Prepare a summary of the route experience (1-2 pages) to give to journalists in a media kit

and to use in website copy.

Bicycle Books:

Approach bicycle book authors to consider including the trail in their books and maps,

such as ‘Bike Tours Around Victoria’ by Julia Blunden.

Working with Tourism Operators:

Conduct briefings of tourism businesses along the route to encourage them to cater to rail

trail tourists, e.g. provide a place to house bicycles overnight and promote the route on

their websites and marketing materials.

When the relevant services are developed, prepare packages for interstate markets that

include bicycle hire, a shuttle service, and accommodation.

Develop packages with the Daylesford Spa Country Railway for a Sunday ride on the rail

trail which is promoted on the railway website, the rail trail website, regional websites and

by other tourism businesses in the region.

Events Strategy:

Develop an annual series of events to reinforce awareness of the rail trail which could

involve any or all of the following:

o A guided brewery, winery and pub ride.

o Family social rides.

o Cycling events that originate in the various towns along the route that are part of

existing events.

o Sporting competitions which involve the rail trail, such as triathlons or fun-runs.



Management Arrangements for Promotion:

Marketing of the rail trail should be overseen by a stakeholder group that involves the

community reference group and participating Shires. Responsibilities and commitments

should be articulated in a Memorandum of Understanding.

The cost of the initiatives above will depend on negotiations and current arrangements with

DMR Tourism, Tourism Victoria and Bicycle Network.

It is recommended that $8,000-10,000 is made available to promote the trail in its first year

(including website development), $6,000-7,000 in the second year, and $5,000 per year in

subsequent years.



21. Potential Barriers The table below highlights the key potential barriers to implementation of the Daylesford

Macedon Ranges Rail Trail concept and recommended mitigation strategies.

Potential Barrier Likelihood of

Occurring

Impact on

the Project Mitigation Strategy

Lack of capital funding to

implement recommendations.

High High Significant investment is required in order to

generate a new tourism product that has the

potential to substantially contribute to the

local economy.

If the concept is fully developed the

investment pay-back period (in terms of

economic benefit to the local community) is

likely to be less than five years.

Development of the rail trail and associated

infrastructure can be effectively staged in

order to reflect available funding.

Explore opportunities for possible external

funding options, including through SRV, RDV

and RDA.

Explore possible sponsorship opportunities for

individual trail sections (having regard to

relevant Council policies).

Lack of funding to support

ongoing maintenance and

promotion.

Medium High Establishment of an effective Maintenance

Plan is critical to protecting the initial capital

investment, minimising potential

environmental impacts and enhancing visitor

experiences (a key source of word-of-mouth

promotion, including via social media).

Maintenance costs need to be viewed in light

of the anticipated economic and community

benefits that will be facilitated by the project.

Options to regularly monitor levels of use and

user feedback should be explored in order to

continually demonstrate the benefits of the

product.

Unable to address approval

requirements or reach

agreement to access sections of

the active rail corridor (i.e.

Section 1 & 5).

Medium Medium Alternative route options for both sections

have been identified as possible 'fall-back'

positions.

Continue to work with relevant agencies and

stakeholders to address planning and approval

requirements to access the active rail sections

whilst other stages are being implemented.



22. Action Plan The following section outlines the key next steps, strategic actions and priorities to implement

the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail project.

Ref

# Action Priority

Indicative

Cost Responsibility

Overall Actions

1 Confirm each Council's support and commitment to

implementing the concept, including accepting land

management, funding and maintenance responsibilities.

High Within

existing

resources

HSC

MRSC

2 Confirm Vic Track and relevant rail authority conditional

support for the project.

High Within

existing

resources

Vic Track

HSC

MRSC

3 Establish a Committee of Management and relevant sub-

committee/s to oversee management and drive

implementation of the concept (refer to Section 16).

High Within

existing

resources

HSC

MRSC

Vic Track

4 Establish a Communication and Consultation Plan to guide

implementation activities and additional planning

requirements.

High Within

existing

resources

HSC

MRSC

Vic Track

5 Once the trail (or sections thereof) is established, develop

a Rail Trail Management Manual, incorporating relevant

policies, protocols and management procedures for

ongoing use, management and maintenance of the trail.

Low Within

existing

resources

HSC

MRSC

Vic Track

Section 2, 3 & 4 of the overall trail:

6 Consultation with leaseholders. Seek consent to gain

access to leased areas for the purpose of assessing the

route and scoping construction requirements.

High Within

existing

resources

HSC

MRSC

7 Assessment of all bridges by structural engineer to

determine modification requirements and costs for Rail

Trail use (including consideration of alternative options

should refurbishment of existing bridges prove

uneconomic).

High Allowance

$10,000

HSC - 6 bridges are

known.

8 Undertake a native vegetation assessment for the

proposed route.

High Allowance

$30,000

HSC

MRSC

(apportion to each LGA

based on % of trail in each

Shire).

9 Undertake detailed design documentation for

construction of each section of the trail.

High Allowance

3 sections x

$10,000 each

= $30,000

HSC

MRSC

(apportion to each LGA

based on % of trail in each

Shire).

10 Subject to Vic Track approval, begin the process to reclaim

leasehold areas and establish new leases with each

Council.

High Within

existing

resources

Vic Track

HSC

MRSC

11 Explore external funding opportunities. High Within

existing

HSC

MRSC



Ref

# Action Priority

Indicative

Cost Responsibility

resources

12 Construct each stage as funding becomes available. Ongoing To be

determined.

HSC / MRSC / Steering

Committee

Section 1 - Daylesford to Bullarto

13 Meet with the Spa Country Rail to discuss in-principle /

conditional agreement for pursuing a shared use pathway

within the rail corridor.

High Within

existing

resources

Vic Track

HSC

Spa Country Rail

14 Work with Vic Track and Spa Country Rail to commission

an appropriate Risk Assessment of the corridor to

determine its suitability and options for possible

establishment of a shared use trail.

High Allowance

$5,000

HSC

15 Work with Vic Track and Spa Country Rail to commission

an appropriate Technical Assessment of the corridor to

determine its suitability and options for possible

establishment of a shared use trail.

High Allowance

$6,000

HSC

16 Work with Spa Country Rail to address any management

or operational requirements that may result from the

possible establishment of a shared trail within the rail

corridor.

Medium Within

existing

resources

HSC / Committee of

Management

17 Subject to approval of the pathway by the transport

businesses, prepare a pathway license between Vic Track

and Council covering the Daylesford-Bullarto section.

Medium Within

existing

resources

Vic Track

HSC

Spa Country Rail

18 Undertake detailed designs for construction of the shared

use pathway within the rail corridor.

(NB: Should the Technical Assessment determine that the

trail is not viable in this section, or authority approval not

be provided, detailed designs will need to be prepared for

the alternative on-road route as described in the body of

the report).

Medium Allowance

$10,000

HSC


determined.

HSC / Committee of

Management

Section 5 - Carlsruhe Station to Woodend Station.

21 MRSC to meet with Vic Track, Vline and Public Transport

Victoria to seek conditional support for the establishment

of a shared use pathway within the active rail corridor.

High Within

existing

resources

MRSC

Vic Track

Vline

PTV

22 Conduct a Risk Assessment by a person suitably qualified

and approved by the transport businesses to identify all

risks and Vline operational requirements associated with

the proposal to establish a shared use pathway within the

Vline operational rail corridor.

High Allowance

$5,000

MRSC

23 Work with Vic Track, Vline and relevant authorities to

commission an appropriate Technical Assessment of the

corridor to determine its suitability and options for

possible establishment of a shared use trail.

High Allowance

$8,000

MRSC



Ref

# Action Priority

Indicative

Cost Responsibility

24 Work with Vic Track, Vline and relevant authorities to

address any risk management or operational

requirements that may result from establishment of a

shared trail within the rail corridor.

Medium Within

existing

resources

MRSC / Committee of

Management

25 Subject to approval of the pathway by the transport

businesses, prepare a pathway license between Vic Track

and Council covering the Woodend to Carlsruhe Station

section (or further if approved).

Medium Within

existing

resources

Vic Track

MRSC

26 Undertake detailed designs for construction of the shared

use pathway within the rail corridor.

(NB: Should the Technical Assessment determine that the

trail is not viable in this section, detailed designs will need

to be prepared for the alternative on-road route as

described in the body of the report).

Medium Allowance

$10,000

MRSC / Committee of

Management


determined.

MRSC / Committee of

Management



23. Conclusion The Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail will fill a gap in the market for a family-oriented

visitor experience which is in demand in both Shires.

Supporting infrastructure, the range and quality of visitor experiences are all generally

excellent, as is the proximity of the trail to likely source markets, particularly Melbourne. The

potential economic, social and recreational benefits of the trail are significant, including

enhancing connections and prosperity of small towns and villages.

Whilst it is acknowledged there is considerable capital cost to construct the entire Rail Trail

(i.e. approximately $4.5 million), the anticipated economic benefits are also substantial,

ranging from $2.1-$4.1 million per annum in additional tourism expenditure in the region. On

this basis, the return on investment is almost 1:1, whilst supporting between 25-51 new jobs

in the local economy.

The concept is widely supported by participating Councils, local residents, local business

communities, Bicycle Network (Victoria) and the regional tourism board.

Staged implementation of the rail trail will provide a valuable tourism product in the region

and support the long-term sustainability of smaller townships and local communities.

Establishment of the rail trail within the active rail corridor (i.e. Carlsruhe Station to Woodend)

may also create a precedent and model for possible future expansion of the shared pathway

within MRSC between Clarkefield to Malmsbury.



24. Appendix 1: Clarkefield to Malmsbury As previously indicated, for Macedon Ranges Shire Council the concept of the rail trail is

broader than a connection from Daylesford to Woodend. Whilst this is the primary

component under investigation as part of this project, MRSC harbour bigger aspirations for use

of the active rail corridor for shared-use pathway construction to provide off-road connections

between major settlements within the Shire, i.e. between Clarkefield to Malmsbury,

incorporating the section between Woodend to Carlsruhe Station which may form part of the

DMRT.

As outlined in Chapter 14 Use of the Operational Rail Corridor, comprehensive technical

assessment and approvals will be required prior to possible establishment of shared-use

pathways within active rail corridors, particularly having regard to the high-speed Melbourne-

Bendigo regional service which traverses MRSC.

Notwithstanding acknowledgement of requirements for detailed technical audits, risk

assessment, approval processes and assignment of legal responsibilities (by way of license

agreement with Vic Track) MRSC have expressed a desire to utilise the rail corridor for

formalisation of an off-road shared pathway between Clarkefield and Malmsbury.

The route (using the active rail corridor) is identified in the map on the following page,

incorporating the section of the DMRT between Woodend and Carlsruhe Station.

Utilising the rail corridor, the overall distance from Clarkefield to Malmsbury is approximately

53.2kms, which includes the 7km between Woodend and Carlsruhe Station. Based on a high-

level benchmark of $100,000 per kilometre, the additional cost to construct a shared use

pathway within the rail corridor is likely to be in the order of$4.6million (excluding the

Woodend to Carlsruhe Station section which has already been included in figures previously

presented for the DMRT).

Additional planning, technical assessment, safety audit and approval process requirements are

also likely to be required which could add in the order of $50,000 to implementing these

sections of shared pathway.

Approval to construct any shared pathway within the active rail corridor should not

automatically be assumed. Comprehensive assessment and approval processes are required

and Council will need to proactively collaborate with Vic Track and other rail stakeholders to

fully investigate options available to achieve an off-road connection utilising the rail corridor.



Potential Shared Use Pathway extension within the active rail corridor: Clarkefield - Woodend,

Woodend-Carlsruhe Station (part of DMRT) and Carlsruhe Station- Malmsbury.



Contact us:

Jayson Moran

[email protected]

0413 475 998

Melbourne

Suite 129/199 Toorak Road

South Yarra

VIC 3141

www.insightleisureplanning.com.au

http://www.insightleisureplanning.com.au/

crossing borders tracks and trails: volume 2 daylesford to … · 2019-06-06 · ©insight leisure...

Documents