Inner Armadale Line Level Crossing Removals

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

The ding, ding, ding of level crossings along the Armadale Line is the sound of a safety risk and congestion point on the local road network.

As more trains start running in the future, boom gates will be down more often, increasing congestion around the crossing, and sharpening our focus on community safety and ease of movement.

To address these concerns, the METRONET Level Crossing Removal project will remove up to six vehicle level crossings on the Inner Armadale Line.

Removing the Mint Street, Oats Street, Welshpool Road, Hamilton Street, Wharf Street and William Street level crossings is an opportunity to improve road safety, ease movements in the area, modernise stations and create versatile public spaces for the community.


Following extensive early planning and seeing the success of similar projects in the eastern states, the current preferred solution is to elevate the rail for up to five of these crossings, except at Hamilton Street, where land on either side of the railway has been reserved.

The elevated solutions preferred for this project will result in Carlisle, Oats Street, Beckenham and potentially Queens Park stations being rebuilt. Due to low patronage, Welshpool Station will close, and the new Oats Street Station will service the Welshpool area. Two options for removing the Wharf Street level crossing were initially put forward, elevating the rail or closing the crossing.

Based on initial stakeholder feedback on the Wharf Street options, an additional option is now being considered which would see elevated rail at both Hamilton Street and Wharf Street, including rebuilding Queens Park Station. The option to close the Wharf Street level crossing is not preferred.

To help inform project planning as it continues, we want to know what you think we should consider. Your valuable feedback will be provided to the design team and the two Community Reference Groups.

For more information on the project visit our website.

The survey and community reference group nominations has now closed. We will announce details of the survey and Community Reference Group members by the end of August. The team is also holding community drop-in sessions on August 15 and 22, more details can be found in 'Key Dates'.

The ding, ding, ding of level crossings along the Armadale Line is the sound of a safety risk and congestion point on the local road network.

As more trains start running in the future, boom gates will be down more often, increasing congestion around the crossing, and sharpening our focus on community safety and ease of movement.

To address these concerns, the METRONET Level Crossing Removal project will remove up to six vehicle level crossings on the Inner Armadale Line.

Removing the Mint Street, Oats Street, Welshpool Road, Hamilton Street, Wharf Street and William Street level crossings is an opportunity to improve road safety, ease movements in the area, modernise stations and create versatile public spaces for the community.


Following extensive early planning and seeing the success of similar projects in the eastern states, the current preferred solution is to elevate the rail for up to five of these crossings, except at Hamilton Street, where land on either side of the railway has been reserved.

The elevated solutions preferred for this project will result in Carlisle, Oats Street, Beckenham and potentially Queens Park stations being rebuilt. Due to low patronage, Welshpool Station will close, and the new Oats Street Station will service the Welshpool area. Two options for removing the Wharf Street level crossing were initially put forward, elevating the rail or closing the crossing.

Based on initial stakeholder feedback on the Wharf Street options, an additional option is now being considered which would see elevated rail at both Hamilton Street and Wharf Street, including rebuilding Queens Park Station. The option to close the Wharf Street level crossing is not preferred.

To help inform project planning as it continues, we want to know what you think we should consider. Your valuable feedback will be provided to the design team and the two Community Reference Groups.

For more information on the project visit our website.

The survey and community reference group nominations has now closed. We will announce details of the survey and Community Reference Group members by the end of August. The team is also holding community drop-in sessions on August 15 and 22, more details can be found in 'Key Dates'.

Drop-in session question submission

Got a question about the project? Submit your questions to the team here ahead of the drop-in session so we can make sure we have all the information on hand to answer them. To see past questions answered by our project team see here.

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

I oppose elevated rail. The area will become an eyesore and will lose its community feel.

Henriette Woudstra 3 months ago

Considering the costs involved, elevating the line has to be the way to go. Okay, we’d all love an underground network (and underground power while we’re at it) but really it’s not that practical is it? Many (most?) other cities in the world and Australia for that matter have raised train lines especially around the city fringes and you find the noise is reduced, traffic not impacted and a cool, lively atmosphere is created. Honestly these people calling the project irresponsible need to visit suburbs like Collingwood, Abbotsford, Richmond; Preznlauerberg, Kreuzberg, Neukölln to see that the raising of platforms actually adds to the feel and vibrancy of these places. Classic old Perth attitudes to oppose this development. Let’s move forward and fast!

Liam 3 months ago

Replacing the existing line on an elevated line is irresponsible on so many levels of assessment and fails to plan for a sustainable responsible approach to urban planning based on environmental economic and social development criteria. This is a critical infrastructure project and must be constructed in a tunnel underground for the long term good of greater Perth . With a lifecycle of greater than 100 years the lifecycle analysis must be under taken over the true lifecycle of 100 years NOT 50 years as is proposed by PTA Metronet which is a fabrication of the costs skewing the costs in favour of overhead construction. This shorter term 50 year analysis is unethical, unprofessional and grossly misleading to the government, business and community.The most beneficial use of the land is to tunnel the rail service which is essential to the best economic environmental and social. outcome for the rail corridor. The rates and taxes from over the tunnel land development will provide a positive investment over the 100 year life of the project for the State Government, Town of Vic Park and the development industry.The inner city land values within and adjacent to the rail corridor will increase with considerable commercial business opportunities providing sustainable growth to the Town of Vic Park and inner Perth region. When a proper Business Case Planning study and Life Cycle Analysis is professionally undertaken over the true 100 year life of the project then the right decision to tunnel the railway project must be implemented .This is a once in a lifetime and intergenerational project to benefit future generations.

Supermacx1 3 months ago

I think it’s a bad idea. I feel that you are ruining one of Perth’s heritage railway lines and replacing it with some more ugly concrete which will not suit the Carlisle area.

Alby 3 months ago

Underground is the most sustainable option and cost effective for the long term.

singer_christine 3 months ago

I love the idea of the raised for Oats Street but one resident is trying to stir discontent saying it will be noisey and bring down house prices - has there been some study as to how more noise it would create as compared to the existing method - l think he is just a whinger but is talking about putting up.signs and dropping flyers

Saskia Vreedenburgh Brink 3 months ago

Something seriously need to be done these level crossing on WHARF stree takes forever and Hamilton Street is a death trap...i ride a motor bike and have been forced off the road and nearly hit so many times ...the smartest suggestion I have heard in a long time.

Edwina 3 months ago

I would like you all to look at Gerard street traffic bridge it has NO BOOM GATES NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS NO ISLANDS means NO TRAFFIC HOLD UPS at all Its Not Rocket since

andyb 4 months ago

Removed by moderator.

Abdul 4 months ago

Option 1 is the best

Abdul 4 months ago

Will the new stations provide cover from the wind? In winter the rain goes sideways and all the seats get wet and everyone tries to huddle behind the one ticket machine to get out of the wind.

CassieS 4 months ago

Leaving Wharf St crossing open is the only aspect I care about.Also I don't see the problem with the line as is.

Dan P. 4 months ago

Elevated tracks is the way to go. Option 3 is the best of all options. Whilst the tracks are elevated, parks, shops and other businesses can be developed underneath.

DanielG 4 months ago

From the direction from Perth to Armadale, why not make the rail go underground before Hamilton Street then continue on to Wharf Street and past William Street? Move Cannington Train Station under Gerard Street bridge to spread out the station distance between Queens Park Station. Move the bus stops on the other side of the rail parallel with Railway Parade to avoid buses crossing the Sevenoaks street to stop. Move Beckenham Station a little bit down south away from the William Street crossing so it won't make the crossing busy and make it accessible to people who live near Roe Highway. If the Cannington area near Carousel is slated to grow, we need the Cannington station more space. The current location is not enough for future upgrades.

RC 4 months ago

Can't believe what I was going to suggest has been suggested by so many before me. Yet no satisfactory reason is given except something about the stakeholders. Who are they? People that get a hand out from the construction companies for constructing an oversized concrete eyesore.If the train line runs under the road, say sinking it half the height of the train, you only require a bridge just over half the height of a train and wide enough to get the two lines through. Minor construction.Putting the train over the road means the bridge has to be high enough to get trucks under. Look how high the Hay St bridge is over the Mitchell Freeway and a truck still managed to hit it. Why in the rest of the world there are underground railways and we still have an ancient system.Ah well, we might catch up with North Korea one day.

Thomas 4 months ago

Will the much needed modification to the Armadale line include the introduction of driverless trains similar to Dubai and Singapore?

Ian Reay 4 months ago

I think that removing these crossings would be a sensational idea.It will be a bonus for our area and stop a lot of accidentsReally looking forward to it going ahead

Gordon and Ann Stewart 4 months ago

These are the most important questions to me and I'm sure to all the other Disabled people that use the Armadale line.1; What will be the minimum width of the ramp access to the new stations for Wheelchairs & Prams ???2; If there is going to be Elevators, what will be the minimum access width and over all interior dimensions for the Elevator ???3; Will there be any extended interruptions to the train service and if so, how long ???4; What will be the minimum clearance for trucks to pass under the new bridges ???

mike1616 4 months ago

You state in the Oats St Q&A document that "Queens Park Station is not intended to move from its current location". Given that both options 1 & 3 require redevelopment of Queens Park Station, the intended closure of Welshpool Station and the proximity to Cannington Station I cannot see why the possibility of building the redeveloped Queens Park Station closer to Perth is being discounted. There are obvious constructability and service continuity benefits of not building the new station directly at the existing station location and moving the station closer to Perth reduces the travel distances from the Bentley Centre, Bentley Hospital, Queens Park Primary and Saint Norbert College. Can you provide your justification for not considering relocating the new Queens Park Station?

Scott C 4 months ago

I have received Bill Johnston's letter regarding this plan. I very much agree with Option 3-New. Why half do the job? In addition, I think the Mint & Oats street and Welshpool Road level crossings should also be eliminated, again, why half do the job.A job worth doing is worth doin well.The alternate may be to elevate the rail lines. Not on an embankment, but on a bridgework, this way all roads and other services would be unobstructed.

Michael55 4 months ago