News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[claybro]

In the UK the Motorway building boom started in the late 1950’s, got into full swing during the 1960’s and lasted about four decades, but only short links here and there have been added since. The stark reality become obvious, more motorways increased private car usage, more freight onto roads resulting in more and more congestion. During the 1960’s many of the UK lesser used rail links were closed, even dual lines were put back to single line in some cases.

Fast forward to the 21st Century, Rail transport uasge in the UK is higher now than at any time in the previous ‘golden era’ of 1920’s to 1950’s. New rail links are being built, some lines re-duplicated back to pre-1960’s configuration, upgrades to locos, rolling stock & infrastructure etc.

Yes Motorways are important but having key rail links have to be a key part of any transport plan and ignoring that as Abbott did has delayed Australia’s progress on that front. The National Rail Network even for freight requires billions of dollars in upgrades, route changes, all metro trains in high population areas (inc Adelaide) should be electric yesterday, especially when coupled with the renewable energy commercial boom transition in progress. Fast Trains have been nothing more than a discussion paper that gets rolled out every couple of years with no action, the inland freight rail link from Melbourne to Brisbane another, the Adelaide Hills rail bypass, and so it goes on. Yet Victoria took the bull by the horns and revived its key rail links, maybe they worked it out quicker or learnt from other examples elsewhere how key this transport mode is.

I do believe we need the essential vital Motorway links as the minimum, for example North-South Corridor etc, but look at Sydney building more and more Tolled Motorways that have created more and more congestion, if Sydney had expanded its Rail Network during the 1980’s & 1990;s when it should have, the increased population would have been served better now. The 21st Century has been playing catch up to build new rail links in Sydney that were needed decades ago.

Your observations regarding British motorways V rail are correct, as is your point that some motorways, such as the Adelaide North/south link are a critical part of the equation. I cant quite agree though that building more motorways in Sydney is a mistake, as Sydney was way behind Melbourne and even Brisbane in freeway construction, and are now only playing catch up. Naturally better rail links will also be critical. Those who agitate for NO freeways, should look at the example of Vancouver Canada, which has had a no urban freeway policy in place, has invested billions into urban rail, including autonomous transit, has had massive urban consolidation and multi storey condo construction, and yet now has the worst traffic congestion in Canada and along with Toronto, some of the worst in North America in general. Freeways can be functional, if part of an overall transport plan.

[Ben]

Does anyone know when Flinders Link will commence. I thought it was to open next year?

[Norman]

Does anyone know when Flinders Link will commence. I thought it was to open next year?

Vegetation around the area has been cleared, I assume they want to start work around the same time as the Flinders Drive extension.

[Tonsley213]

Do we even know if a construction contract has been awarded?

[1NEEDS2POST]

Whatever they do for the Flinders extension, I hope its with a vision to extend the line further in the future. Sure, it doesn't need to be extended further now, but I hope this extension doesn't get boxed in with development.

The vision I have is to extend it to the old Willunga railway alignment. This is still quite visible on Google Earth.

Blue is the current Tonsley line, green the Flinders extension and red the old Willunga alignment.

[SBD]

Whatever they do for the Flinders extension, I hope its with a vision to extend the line further in the future. Sure, it doesn't need to be extended further now, but I hope this extension doesn't get boxed in with development.

The vision I have is to extend it to the old Willunga railway alignment. This is still quite visible on Google Earth.

Blue is the current Tonsley line, green the Flinders extension and red the old Willunga alignment.

How would the gradient between Bedford Park and Old Reynella compare with the original alignment from Hallett Cove station? I don't know what gradients are acceptable for urban rail, I expect it can be steeper than interstate freight. Wikipedia says the ruling grade for the WIllunga line was 1:45, cited to a 1915 newspaper article about the opening.

I suspect the easement (currently occupied by the Coast to Vines trail) is not wide enough to put double track as the original railway would have only been a single track with sidings at some of the stations.

The Stations.
There are 17 stopping-places on the line — Keswick, Goodwood, Clarence Park, Edwardstown, Ascot Park, Oaklands, Middle Brighton, Brighton, Seacliff, Marino, Marino Rocks, Hallett's Cove, Reynella, Morphett Vale, Noarlunga, McLaren Vale, and, Willunga, and the train arrived at Willunga fairly punctually, 2 hours and 14 minutes after leaving Adelaide. The return journey occupied only an hour and 35 minutes, but there was a great difference in the duty imposed on the engine. The "down" journey is virtually all up hill from Brighton to Willunga, and the ruling grade is 1 in 45, so that in the matter of hill-climbing the line compares evenly with the line to Mount Lofty.

WILLUNGA RAILWAY (1915, January 19). The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1931), p. 6. Retrieved June 26, 2018, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5441045

The article goes on to dream about extensions to Normanville and Yankalilla, then eventually to Second Valley where fast steamers could take passengers to Kangaroo Island.

[dbl96]

Whatever they do for the Flinders extension, I hope its with a vision to extend the line further in the future. Sure, it doesn't need to be extended further now, but I hope this extension doesn't get boxed in with development.

The vision I have is to extend it to the old Willunga railway alignment. This is still quite visible on Google Earth.

Blue is the current Tonsley line, green the Flinders extension and red the old Willunga alignment.

How would the gradient between Bedford Park and Old Reynella compare with the original alignment from Hallett Cove station? I don't know what gradients are acceptable for urban rail, I expect it can be steeper than interstate freight. Wikipedia says the ruling grade for the WIllunga line was 1:45, cited to a 1915 newspaper article about the opening.

I suspect the easement (currently occupied by the Coast to Vines trail) is not wide enough to put double track as the original railway would have only been a single track with sidings at some of the stations.

The Stations.
There are 17 stopping-places on the line — Keswick, Goodwood, Clarence Park, Edwardstown, Ascot Park, Oaklands, Middle Brighton, Brighton, Seacliff, Marino, Marino Rocks, Hallett's Cove, Reynella, Morphett Vale, Noarlunga, McLaren Vale, and, Willunga, and the train arrived at Willunga fairly punctually, 2 hours and 14 minutes after leaving Adelaide. The return journey occupied only an hour and 35 minutes, but there was a great difference in the duty imposed on the engine. The "down" journey is virtually all up hill from Brighton to Willunga, and the ruling grade is 1 in 45, so that in the matter of hill-climbing the line compares evenly with the line to Mount Lofty.

WILLUNGA RAILWAY (1915, January 19). The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1931), p. 6. Retrieved June 26, 2018, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5441045

The article goes on to dream about extensions to Normanville and Yankalilla, then eventually to Second Valley where fast steamers could take passengers to Kangaroo Island.

According to Google Maps, the width of the Coast to Vines rail corridor is around 40-60 metres. This is significantly wider than many sections of the existing double track rail network. There should be no problem accommodating a double track railway. The corridor was probably originally created with the provision for future double tracking.

I would propose linking Flinders to the Cost to Vines corridor via Flagstaff Hill and Aberfoyle Park. This would provide for a more gradual rise in gradient, allow for service of a significant suburban centre, and could make use of an existing undeveloped corridor for most of its length.

[rubberman]

Whatever they do for the Flinders extension, I hope its with a vision to extend the line further in the future. Sure, it doesn't need to be extended further now, but I hope this extension doesn't get boxed in with development.

The vision I have is to extend it to the old Willunga railway alignment. This is still quite visible on Google Earth.

Blue is the current Tonsley line, green the Flinders extension and red the old Willunga alignment.

How would the gradient between Bedford Park and Old Reynella compare with the original alignment from Hallett Cove station? I don't know what gradients are acceptable for urban rail, I expect it can be steeper than interstate freight. Wikipedia says the ruling grade for the WIllunga line was 1:45, cited to a 1915 newspaper article about the opening.

I suspect the easement (currently occupied by the Coast to Vines trail) is not wide enough to put double track as the original railway would have only been a single track with sidings at some of the stations.

The Stations.
There are 17 stopping-places on the line — Keswick, Goodwood, Clarence Park, Edwardstown, Ascot Park, Oaklands, Middle Brighton, Brighton, Seacliff, Marino, Marino Rocks, Hallett's Cove, Reynella, Morphett Vale, Noarlunga, McLaren Vale, and, Willunga, and the train arrived at Willunga fairly punctually, 2 hours and 14 minutes after leaving Adelaide. The return journey occupied only an hour and 35 minutes, but there was a great difference in the duty imposed on the engine. The "down" journey is virtually all up hill from Brighton to Willunga, and the ruling grade is 1 in 45, so that in the matter of hill-climbing the line compares evenly with the line to Mount Lofty.

WILLUNGA RAILWAY (1915, January 19). The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1931), p. 6. Retrieved June 26, 2018, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5441045

The article goes on to dream about extensions to Normanville and Yankalilla, then eventually to Second Valley where fast steamers could take passengers to Kangaroo Island.

According to Google Maps, the width of the Coast to Vines rail corridor is around 40-60 metres. This is significantly wider than many sections of the existing double track rail network. There should be no problem accommodating a double track railway. The corridor was probably originally created with the provision for future double tracking.

I would propose linking Flinders to the Cost to Vines corridor via Flagstaff Hill and Aberfoyle Park. This would provide for a more gradual rise in gradient, allow for service of a significant suburban centre, and could make use of an existing undeveloped corridor for most of its length.

That looks perfect for light rail which deals far better with closely spaced stops and rather winding routes.

[1NEEDS2POST]

According to Google Maps, the width of the Coast to Vines rail corridor is around 40-60 metres. This is significantly wider than many sections of the existing double track rail network. There should be no problem accommodating a double track railway. The corridor was probably originally created with the provision for future double tracking.

I would propose linking Flinders to the Cost to Vines corridor via Flagstaff Hill and Aberfoyle Park. This would provide for a more gradual rise in gradient, allow for service of a significant suburban centre, and could make use of an existing undeveloped corridor for most of its length.

That's a neat idea to use Glenloth Creek to reach Aberfoyle Park. The problem is always going to be the segment just beyond Flinders.

Looking at Google's topographic map, Flinders station will be at about 60 m. The station might be a little bit higher when it's built. The point where the line in your map reaches Flagstaff Rd is 180 m. It will be too steep for a railway.

It's either got to run along one of the valleys or it will involve lots of tunnelling and long bridges. There will need to be bridges regardless. I've drawn a possible route along the valleys.

[EBG]

The Sturt Creek Gorge just south of the Flinders Ring Rd is very deep and would require a major Bridge that would have to be very tall or else the line would have to continue east for a more suitable place to cross.
check out
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-35.030 ... 312!8i6656

[dbl96]

That's a neat idea to use Glenloth Creek to reach Aberfoyle Park. The problem is always going to be the segment just beyond Flinders.

Looking at Google's topographic map, Flinders station will be at about 60 m. The station might be a little bit higher when it's built. The point where the line in your map reaches Flagstaff Rd is 180 m. It will be too steep for a railway.

It's either got to run along one of the valleys or it will involve lots of tunnelling and long bridges. There will need to be bridges regardless. I've drawn a possible route along the valleys.

I agree, Glenloth Creek looks like it would be the most suitable route.

It would be advantageous if the route could be straightened out more. Too many tight bends will reduce the potential speed of the line. The route you suggest through the Flinders campus could be quite disruptive and divisive. Ideally, if funds permitted, a tunnel (approximately 700 m) could be constructed under the campus. This would not need to be an expensive tunnel bored with a tunnel boring machine. A traditional railway mountain tunnel, like those already existing on the Belair line would suffice. A Flinders University station box could be excavated in the valley just West of the lake, where the excavation required would only need to be 10-20 metres in depth to reach the line. Cuttings would substantially straighten the line further. These alterations could substantially increase the speed of the line and its ability to service Flinders University:

[dbl96]

According to Google Maps, the width of the Coast to Vines rail corridor is around 40-60 metres. This is significantly wider than many sections of the existing double track rail network. There should be no problem accommodating a double track railway. The corridor was probably originally created with the provision for future double tracking.

I would propose linking Flinders to the Cost to Vines corridor via Flagstaff Hill and Aberfoyle Park. This would provide for a more gradual rise in gradient, allow for service of a significant suburban centre, and could make use of an existing undeveloped corridor for most of its length.

That looks perfect for light rail which deals far better with closely spaced stops and rather winding routes.

This route is more suitable for heavy rail/metro than light rail for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the route is quite long and remote. Light rail has slower overall speeds and capacity, resulting in increased travel times and decreased comfort for passengers over long distances.

Secondly, it is unclear how a light-rail converted Tonsley line would connect to the Adelaide city centre. A few years back the government toyed with the idea of tram-trains, which could share the rail corridor from Ascot Park, but this was found to be impractical for many reasons, including that trams and trains would not be able to use the same platforms due to differences in height. Why invest money in such expensive alterations to the line that would only result in reduced speed, comfort and capacity to passengers?

Finally, station density would not be very high overall. My station placements were indicative, and the number of stations on the segment between Reynella and Hackam (the densest section) could potentially be reduced. But even on this section, stations are spaced at 1200m apart - significantly further apart than the average on Adelaide's network, and at least twice as far apart as what is typical for light rail. Elsewhere on the line, like between Flinders University and Happy Valley, stations are spaced on average around 3.5 km apart - far further than is ideal for light rail. Again, there is some potential for additional stations, but the nature of this section of the route probably does not warrant it.

[ml69]

I admire the vision, as this part of Adelaide has a significant existing population who could greatly benefit by a rail link.

Stops should be widely spaced to allow for a fast ride into the city, however the stations should provide plenty of park n ride and feeder bus connections to their respective neighbourhoods (eg Obahn, Mandurah/Joondalup rail lines in Perth).

But first let's get an underground city link built before we look into this.

[rubberman]

According to Google Maps, the width of the Coast to Vines rail corridor is around 40-60 metres. This is significantly wider than many sections of the existing double track rail network. There should be no problem accommodating a double track railway. The corridor was probably originally created with the provision for future double tracking.

I would propose linking Flinders to the Cost to Vines corridor via Flagstaff Hill and Aberfoyle Park. This would provide for a more gradual rise in gradient, allow for service of a significant suburban centre, and could make use of an existing undeveloped corridor for most of its length.

That looks perfect for light rail which deals far better with closely spaced stops and rather winding routes.

This route is more suitable for heavy rail/metro than light rail for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the route is quite long and remote. Light rail has slower overall speeds and capacity, resulting in increased travel times and decreased comfort for passengers over long distances.

Secondly, it is unclear how a light-rail converted Tonsley line would connect to the Adelaide city centre. A few years back the government toyed with the idea of tram-trains, which could share the rail corridor from Ascot Park, but this was found to be impractical for many reasons, including that trams and trains would not be able to use the same platforms due to differences in height. Why invest money in such expensive alterations to the line that would only result in reduced speed, comfort and capacity to passengers?

Finally, station density would not be very high overall. My station placements were indicative, and the number of stations on the segment between Reynella and Hackam (the densest section) could potentially be reduced. But even on this section, stations are spaced at 1200m apart - significantly further apart than the average on Adelaide's network, and at least twice as far apart as what is typical for light rail. Elsewhere on the line, like between Flinders University and Happy Valley, stations are spaced on average around 3.5 km apart - far further than is ideal for light rail. Again, there is some potential for additional stations, but the nature of this section of the route probably does not warrant it.

Presently, station spacings on the Adelaide rail system are insanely close to each other. This destroys the economics of heavy rail, and therefore becomes a huge impediment to any expansion. Those short distances mean much lower speeds, and much more money spent on station infrastructure. The end result is that the economics of any extension are so bad that proposals get filed away as uneconomic. If someone wants to torpedo a project, then the easiest way to do it is make it uneconomic. Further, it enables public servants who don't like heavy rail to put up massively overpriced schemes, which then get canned...just as they wanted. Then, when someone else comes up with a similar scheme, they can smugly say to the Minister that this is similar to a previous uneconomic scheme, and here is a patronising letter to the scheme proponent. Enough of this, and the Minister comes round to the official view of rail extensions only if they are token lengths. We are not there yet. The extensions to Noarlunga Centre and Seaford have it right in my opinion. That's heavy rail doing what it should.

[1NEEDS2POST]

But first let's get an underground city link built before we look into this.

The thing is, if the Flinders extension extension is considered, it slightly changes the city underground link. The proposals I've read suggest linking Gawler to Seaford and Outer Harbor to Belair. While Gawler to Seaford makes sense, Outer Harbor to Belair less so. The patronage on Outer Harbor is greater than Belair. So there will either be excess capacity on the Belair line or not enough on the Outer Harbor line.

If the Flinders extension extension is considered, it would make sense to link Outer Harbor to the Flinders extension extension. I'd imagine both lines would have similar patronage.

On the downside, it would have to involve quadruplication of the track to Woodlands Park. This might be difficult, such as at Goodwood Junction where they just built the underpass.

On the subject of the city underground link, I've noticed on the SA Planning Portal, one of the blue lines appears to be the proposed alignment. Does anyone know how far advanced this idea is?
https://www.saplanningportal.sa.gov.au/ ... maps#metro