News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1847
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3901 Post by claybro » Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:15 pm

Aidan wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:33 am
claybro,
I make no apologies for presenting the cheaper option. DPTI's Flinders Link plan is catastrophic for Adelaide's long term development, as it would make it very difficult to extend the line further (and if they did somehow manage it, the route would be very slow and expensive).

However it does have the short term advantage of being cheaper than my preferred option. So presenting a cheaper still option was essential lest they selected DPTI's plan on cost grounds.

Linking an upgraded Tonsley station with Flinders Uni (with an upgraded Flinders Loop bus, or better still by diverting the G10 via Ring Road) would provide much of the short term benefit of DPTI's plan at a small fraction of the cost. But most importantly, it would still enable a more comprehensive solution in the future.
A couple of problems with this Aidan. Despite many here hopes and dreams of rail extending through Aberfoyle, Happy valley etc, these areas are very low population density, have very little option for further expansion to the southeast, and will not have enough infill development even in the next 30-50 years to make any extension of Flinders line, through difficult terrain remotely worthwhile. Even the station locations you mention serve no particular community or service centres, rather plonked in the middle of suburbia just so it can follow the path of least resistance terrain wise, with evenly placed stations. Re your "cheaper" option of the upgraded Tonsley with a Flinders loop bus , once this is in place it is unlikely money would be found in our lifetimes for such a project. At least now, the line will terminate somewhat where people need to go and provide a link from the Tonsley development and Flinders precinct, without having to change modes.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2024
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 6 times

News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3902 Post by Aidan » Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:09 pm

claybro wrote: A couple of problems with this Aidan. Despite many here hopes and dreams of rail extending through Aberfoyle, Happy valley etc, these areas are very low population density, have very little option for further expansion to the southeast, and will not have enough infill development even in the next 30-50 years to make any extension of Flinders line, through difficult terrain remotely worthwhile.
Hence my preference for the route W of HVR. My mention of a route further E was speculation about DPTI's secret alignment options, not a suggestion of where it should go.
Even the station locations you mention serve no particular community or service centres, rather plonked in the middle of suburbia just so it can follow the path of least resistance terrain wise, with evenly placed stations.
Rubbish! All the stations I mentioned would be positioned for optimal bus interchange opportunities, so that all outer southern suburbs residents would be able to catch the bus to the train station to get tho the City more quickly. Thus means Southlink (or their successor) wouldn't need to deploy so many buses on express routes into the City, so could instead concentrate on increasing frequency of outer suburban routes.
Re your "cheaper" option of the upgraded Tonsley with a Flinders loop bus , once this is in place it is unlikely money would be found in our lifetimes for such a project. At least now, the line will terminate somewhat where people need to go and provide a link from the Tonsley development and Flinders precinct, without having to change modes.
Sorry, but that's just stupid! The minimal expense of an upgraded station would not be enough to deter any government from extending the line (look at Oaklands for proof, and note that the previous upgrade there was far more than I was suggesting this case). The G10 diversion would be even more attractive to passengers if the railway served the FMC bus interchange directly.

The Flinders Link wouldn't serve Flinders Uni much better than the cheaper option - and many of those who'd decide to walk from the station to the Uni would take a shortcut through the hospital, which is generally regarded as undesirable.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1847
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3903 Post by claybro » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:19 pm

Aidan wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:09 pm
Rubbish! All the stations I mentioned would be positioned for optimal bus interchange opportunities, so that all outer southern suburbs residents would be able to catch the bus to the train station to get tho the City more quickly. Thus means Southlink (or their successor) wouldn't need to deploy so many buses on express routes into the City, so could instead concentrate on increasing frequency of outer suburban routes
I just don't see the population required to support such a service. Not even in the next 50 years. Bussing people in to interchanges in the middle of residential suburbia away from the large arterial roads is not really ideal. This is all really low density stuff in here. Even the bus services would not carry the volumes required in this pocket of suburbs to make the expense worthwhile. There can literally never be any further large scale development to the south, or east of these suburbs.
Aidan wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:09 pm
Sorry, but that's just stupid! The minimal expense of an upgraded station would not be enough to deter any government from extending the line (look at Oaklands for proof, and not that the previous upgrade there was far more than I was suggesting this case). The G10 diversion would be even more attractive to passengers if the railway served the FMC bus interchange directly.
You missed my point Aidan. I'm not suggesting the (relatively small) cost of upgrading Tonsley alone would prevent them further extending the line, I am suggesting that once a Tonsley terminus and interchange was in place, they would find little need to extend the line. In fact, an upgraded Tonsley interchange probably would have been the focus for all the Southlink services you mention in your other point, creating even less need to push the train into the likes of Happy Valley.
Aidan wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:09 pm
The Flinders Link wouldn't serve Flinders Uni much better than the cheaper option - and many of those who'd decide to walk from the station to the Uni would take a shortcut through the hospital, which is generally regarded as undesirable.
I'm sure students and medical staff using the train would not agree with you, and that getting off their train, to get on a bus to travel less than 1km would seem a ridiculous inefficiency for the 20 or 30 years it may take for them to decide to (maybe) extend the line. If you are concerned that hundreds of students traipsing through hospital grounds are an issue, well it is one easily solved with clearly identified and well lit walkways, and proper landscaping to discourage this-if indeed it is a problem.
I understand you are saying the present proposal probably puts an end to and further extension to the south, but I just don't believe it would ever have been viable anyway, given we are still probably a decade away from even electrifying OH, and what we will end up with now, is better than a Tonsley interchange.
Further, I guess the question we should really be asking, is if the Flinders station is in the best possible location? Now that is an entirely different discussion.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2024
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3904 Post by Aidan » Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:36 pm

claybro, WTF do you think it is that I'm proposing?
Your comprehension of my previous post seems to be very poor.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

EBG
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1841
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:49 pm
Has thanked: 575 times
Been thanked: 1020 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3905 Post by EBG » Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:40 pm

Flinders had their own bus link in the 70's from the Uni to Tonsley station and Marion shopping centre. Do we have to wait another 40 years.
Last edited by EBG on Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2024
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3906 Post by Aidan » Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:59 am

claybro wrote: I just don't see the population required to support such a service. Not even in the next 50 years.
Then you aren't looking - the population it would serve would expand to six figures within that timescale — if it hasn't already!
Bussing people in to interchanges in the middle of residential suburbia away from the large arterial roads is not really ideal.
...nor really relevant, as none of the stations fit that description.

Consider each station (those in brackets may be omitted):
Tonsley: on Sturt Road which already has lots of buses.
FMC: on Flinders Drive outside hospital main entrance, by existing bus interchange.
Flagstaff Hill: underground by the roundabout where Flagstaff Road / Happy Valley Drive intersects with Black Road. Aberfoyle Park bus routes can be extended to the station.
(Glenthorne): by junction of Main South Road and Chandlers Hill Road
O' Halloran Hill: probably by Main South Road intersection with Lander/Candy Road (though the alternative being where Southern Expressway crosses Lander Road). In both cases, 2 bus routes would be diverted via Lander Road to connect with the trains.
(Reynella Junction): By the existing Panalatinga Road Park&Ride, where several arterial roads meet.
Old Reynella: By major existing major bus interchange.
Pimpala: On existing bus route on Pimpala Road, very near the Main South Road / Sheriffs Road intersection
Morphett Vale: On existing bus route on Bains Road
Wirreanda: On existing bus route on Wheatsheaf Road
Huntingdale: On existing bus route on Doctors Road
Hackham: On Main South Road
You missed my point Aidan. I'm not suggesting the (relatively small) cost of upgrading Tonsley alone would prevent them further extending the line, I am suggesting that once a Tonsley terminus and interchange was in place, they would find little need to extend the line. In fact, an upgraded Tonsley interchange probably would have been the focus for all the Southlink services you mention in your other point, creating even less need to push the train into the likes of Happy Valley.
With a bus interchange (really no more than reinstating a bus stop each way plus some shelters and signage) there'd be as much need to extend the line as there is now, and it certainly wouldn't be worth Southlink focussing their services on.

As for the Flinders station location, that's definitely part of the same discussion, but it'll have to wait till later as I'm too tired to explain any more.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1847
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3907 Post by claybro » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:57 am

Aidan wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:36 pm
claybro, WTF do you think it is that I'm proposing?
Your comprehension of my previous post seems to be very poor.
So let me sum up my "poor" understanding. You have apparently presented one option of a cheaper alternative of UPGRADING EXISTING TONSLEY STATION to interchange status in lieu of the current Finders link until such time as the government can afford a proper extension that would take in suburbs such as Flagstaff Hill, Happy Valley Reynella etc via a more centrally located Flinders Station. -All good so far.
My thoughts of this is that once such an interchange was in place, the government would find very little motivation for further extension, as the population projection in that area does not warrant the money required, when stacked up against other rail needs. Not in the next 50 years anyway. So we would be stuck with pretty much, what is there now.
BTW, I agree the current Flinders station could be better located, and I wonder if instead of muddying the waters with a cheap Tonsley option, it would have been better just to focus your energy on a proposed slightly longer extension to better locate Flinders station to a more central place within the precinct.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2024
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3908 Post by Aidan » Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:53 pm

claybro wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:57 am
So let me sum up my "poor" understanding. You have apparently presented one option of a cheaper alternative of UPGRADING EXISTING TONSLEY STATION to interchange status in lieu of the current Finders link until such time as the government can afford a proper extension that would take in suburbs such as Flagstaff Hill, Happy Valley Reynella etc via a more centrally located Flinders Station. -All good so far.
No, just until they can afford phase 1 of that extension: straightening the Tonsley Line, a new elevated Tonsley station just north of (and/or above) Sturt Road, and a Flinders station (also elevated) next to the bus interchange by the FMC main entrance.
My thoughts of this is that once such an interchange was in place, the government would find very little motivation for further extension, as the population projection in that area does not warrant the money required, when stacked up against other rail needs. Not in the next 50 years anyway. So we would be stuck with pretty much, what is there now.
...Which doesn't make sense, as it would merely be an interchange like Oaklands: some buses would stop there, but none would terminate there.
What population do you regard as being needed to support a railway? Do you think building the Seaford Line was justified? Have you noticed that many of the stations on that line have limited catchment due to proximity to the sea? Morphett Vale (Adelaide's biggest suburb) has plenty of people living along the route on both sides.
BTW, I agree the current Flinders station could be better located, and I wonder if instead of muddying the waters with a cheap Tonsley option, it would have been better just to focus your energy on a proposed slightly longer extension to better locate Flinders station to a more central place within the precinct.
I did! But I wasn't sufficiently foolish to ignore the risk of DPTI's Flinders Link plan being chosen on the grounds that it's the cheapest option!

DPTI were arguing that building a station north of FMC was better because it better supported Flinders Uni's plans to build over the playing fields (as if that were a good thing). One of their supposed advantages of having a station there was better was because fewer people would walk through the hospital to get to the new development. But I pointed out that their claim didn't make sense - most people taking a shortcut through the hospital would be going to the university - and from north of the hospital they'd be walking further through the hospital, and more people would be doing so because it would be harder to reach the (bus) alternative.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 2021
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: City
Has thanked: 395 times
Been thanked: 122 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3909 Post by SRW » Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:19 pm

Out of curiosity, would an imagined southern suburbs extension of the Tonsley line be two-track or single? And is there any scope/advantage at all (property acquisition notwithstanding) for such an extension (and upper Flinders campus stop) to be achieved as a spur from the Belair line (from, say, around Eden Hills)?
Keep Adelaide Weird

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1847
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3910 Post by claybro » Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:05 pm

Aidan wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:53 pm
...Which doesn't make sense, as it would merely be an interchange like Oaklands: some buses would stop there, but none would terminate there.
What population do you regard as being needed to support a railway? Do you think building the Seaford Line was justified? Have you noticed that many of the stations on that line have limited catchment due to proximity to the sea? Morphett Vale (Adelaide's biggest suburb) has plenty of people living along the route on both sides.
Glad you brought up the Seaford line as a comparison.
1. Stations with limited catchment close to the sea you mention (presume you mean Hove, Hallet Cove etc) already existed on the Noarlunga line. The new Seaford line was constructed in an already rapidly expanding area, with a view to extending to Aldinga-also expanding. Your proposed extension though Happy Valley and Reynella don't have the same potential for future expansion, their population will not rapidly expand, and no, I don't believe there is sufficient population to make the extension there viable.
2. Seaford was built on an already existing reserve.
3. Seaford line was constructed in a major growth corridor with planned commercial precincts.
Even with all of that, the Seaford line is really only busy during peak times, but for future growth was vital to get it in place.

Glad you also mentioned comparison with previous Oaklands redevelopment an indication of how an interim Tonsley interchange might work.the previous Oaklands station development one of the biggest wastes of money on the train system. They spent millions on a station, with no precinct, no services, and no connectivity to a major service and shopping centre some 500m away. Now they are re-doing it all again to facilitate an intersection upgrade, with still no services and no connectivity to anywhere people need to be. Another "interim" one of these at Tonsley....no thanks.

OlympusAnt
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 7:31 pm
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3911 Post by OlympusAnt » Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:31 pm

Aidan wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:30 pm
OlympusAnt, are you aware of the history?

SA did recognise the advantage of gauge commonality, and met with Victoria and NSW to decide which gauge to select.
NSW had an Irish chief engineer who insisted on the 5ft 3 gauge which was standard in Ireland. So SA ordered broad gauge equipment. Victoria soon followed. Then NSW replaced their Irish chief engineer with a Scottish one who insisted on switching to standard gauge.
I stand corrected. Also, despite all that, we still ended up with narrow gauge :applause:
Follow me on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/135625678@N06/

TorrensSA
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:45 am
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3912 Post by TorrensSA » Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:36 pm

If you were going to build a train line to Reynella / Morphett Vale etc, wouldn't it be cheaper to use the old rail corridor from Hallett Cove? It seems really expensive and almost pointless to build a brand new line. The line to Hackham via Hallett Cove would be 35km to ARS, only 3km longer than a direct route.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2024
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3913 Post by Aidan » Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:46 pm

SRW wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:19 pm
Out of curiosity, would an imagined southern suburbs extension of the Tonsley line be two-track or single? And is there any scope/advantage at all (property acquisition notwithstanding) for such an extension (and upper Flinders campus stop) to be achieved as a spur from the Belair line (from, say, around Eden Hills)?
Two track.

Constructing a spur to Flinders Uni from the Belair line would be very difficult technically. Converting the line to light rail would make it slightly easier, but even then it would still be technically difficult and expensive, and the line doesn't serve many places that buses to Flinders don't already.

TorrensSA wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:36 pm
If you were going to build a train line to Reynella / Morphett Vale etc, wouldn't it be cheaper to use the old rail corridor from Hallett Cove? It seems really expensive and almost pointless to build a brand new line. The line to Hackham via Hallett Cove would be 35km to ARS, only 3km longer than a direct route.
More like 5km longer, and the route through Hallett Cove would be slow as it has some fairly tight curves. Plus part of the line has been turned into a road (Patpa Drive) and joining it to the existing line would be difficult now the platforms of Hallett Cove station have been widened. Also there'd probably be a lot of opposition from Hallett Cove residents.

To be competitive, train services must be reasonably fast. That effectively rules out the old route through Hallett Cove. A new route would also bring significant advantages, such as a station at FMC.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

urban
Legendary Member!
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am
Location: City of Unley
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3914 Post by urban » Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:37 pm

OlympusAnt wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:31 pm
Aidan wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:30 pm
OlympusAnt, are you aware of the history?

SA did recognise the advantage of gauge commonality, and met with Victoria and NSW to decide which gauge to select.
NSW had an Irish chief engineer who insisted on the 5ft 3 gauge which was standard in Ireland. So SA ordered broad gauge equipment. Victoria soon followed. Then NSW replaced their Irish chief engineer with a Scottish one who insisted on switching to standard gauge.
I stand corrected. Also, despite all that, we still ended up with narrow gauge :applause:
Narrow gauge was often used in country areas for freight transport where the mindset was "trains will always go straight to the nearest port" on the basis that ships would always be the most efficient method of transporting goods and people long distances.

I Follow PAFC
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:23 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

#3915 Post by I Follow PAFC » Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm

Train 10.28am from Outer Harbor was only one carriage and been on it a lot when it been two a lot and it been full. :wallbash: :wallbash:
I Follow The Port Adelaide Football Club
https://www.facebook.com/IFollowThePAFC/

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests