Sensational-Adelaide.com

• Gawler Central - upgrade. Limited patronage.
• Gawler Oval - upgrade. Improve access. Serves recreation areas.
• Gawler - quite good. Fairly high patronage. Used as the terminus for some services. Would benefit from an innovative whole-of-station shelter that doesn't compromise appreciation of the existing station building.
• Evanston - already a modern station. Improved shelter would be beneficial, as would platform lengthening. Fairly low patronage so closure is a future option.
• Tambelin - full upgrade needed.
• Kudla - closure. Literally serves nothing, with no immediate surroundings.
• Munno Para - a good station.
• Broadmeadows - good standard. Could be worth a rename in future.
• Womma - upgrade needed.
• Elizabeth - good.
• Elizabeth South - good, needs more shelter though.
• Nurlutta - very low patronage, closure recommended.
• Salisbury - upgrade needed, along with grade separation from Park Terrace (priority).
• Chidda - good standard, potential for mode change if Spains Road is connected to Frost Road in future.
• Parafield - good standard, but line needs grade separation from Kings Road and station could use a toilet or other amenity improvement. Potential for improved mode change.
• Parafield Gardens - full upgrade or closure.
• Greenfields - closure.
• Mawson Interchange - one of the best stations on the line. Platforms will probably need lengthening.
• Dry Creek - full upgrade needed, along with improvements to access.
• Kilburn - full rebuild needed. Needs a western entrance. Has potential for mode change.
• Islington - rebuild needed. Potential for mode change. Rename.
• Dudley Park - upgrade needed. Purpose in future unknown - area is well-served by buses, but the station supports the ever-increasing residential density of the area. Rename to Prospect.
• Ovingham - same as Dudley Park.
• North Adelaide - upgrade needed.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 10:10 am

I feel that every station between Salisbury and Adelaide would definitely benefit from relocation of the ARTC line. It forms a massive barrier to access and movement, and limits the scope for other improvements; for example, potential passing loops at major stations or platform widening.

Goodsy wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 10:47 am

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 10:10 am

I feel that every station between Salisbury and Adelaide would definitely benefit from relocation of the ARTC line. It forms a massive barrier to access and movement, and limits the scope for other improvements; for example, potential passing loops at major stations or platform widening.

Build the Northern Connector rail line and change the gauge of the ARTC line so Gawler trains can use it as a passing loop

• The tram extension is separated from road traffic, speeding up the tram.
• Cheaper to build than the other ProspectLINK suggestions since it doesn't involve ripping up the road or placing rails in the road.
• Extra tram stops can be added where the existing train stations don't serve.
• The tram can use the broad gauge sidings to serve Churchill Centre.
• Trains running express from Dry Creek to Adelaide will be much faster than driving. 4000 class railcars are based on V/Line Vlocity railcars. In Victoria, they are capable of 160 km/h. With track upgrades, the train from Dry Creek to Adelaide could reach 160 km/h.

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 11:25 am

Goodsy wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 10:47 am

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 10:10 am

I feel that every station between Salisbury and Adelaide would definitely benefit from relocation of the ARTC line. It forms a massive barrier to access and movement, and limits the scope for other improvements; for example, potential passing loops at major stations or platform widening.

Build the Northern Connector rail line and change the gauge of the ARTC line so Gawler trains can use it as a passing loop

Here is an out there idea:
Suppose the Adelaide Hills bypass is built and also the North Adelaide tram extension is built. These are two projects that the government is somewhat keen to build.

In the AdeLINK plan, the North Adelaide tram is extended through the suburbs to Grand Junction Road. The problem is that it will involve street running and if they choose narrow roads, then the tram will get caught in traffic. There is no benefit to this tram route over a bus route. In the AdeLINK plan, one of the suggested routes comes very close to Ovingham Station (the blue line). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_ ... /maplink/2

What I suggest is the North Adelaide tram is extended to Ovingham Station. From there, it uses the railway alignment to Dry Creek Station. With the removal of the ARTC line, plus the fact there is already a bit of spare space on the alignment, I think we can easily fit two railway tracks and two tram tracks. ARTC loading gauge is 3.2 m wide, while Adelaide trams are only 2.4 m wide. Trains are then run express from Dry Creek to Adelaide. Trams replace the train stations between Dry Creek and Adelaide.

This has a number of advantages:

• The tram extension is separated from road traffic, speeding up the tram.
• Cheaper to build than the other ProspectLINK suggestions since it doesn't involve ripping up the road or placing rails in the road.
• Extra tram stops can be added where the existing train stations don't serve.
• The tram can use the broad gauge sidings to serve Churchill Centre.
• Trains running express from Dry Creek to Adelaide will be much faster than driving. 4000 class railcars are based on V/Line Vlocity railcars. In Victoria, they are capable of 160 km/h. With track upgrades, the train from Dry Creek to Adelaide could reach 160 km/h.

Ho Really wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 12:14 pm

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 11:25 am

Goodsy wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 10:47 am

Build the Northern Connector rail line and change the gauge of the ARTC line so Gawler trains can use it as a passing loop

Here is an out there idea:
Suppose the Adelaide Hills bypass is built and also the North Adelaide tram extension is built. These are two projects that the government is somewhat keen to build.

In the AdeLINK plan, the North Adelaide tram is extended through the suburbs to Grand Junction Road. The problem is that it will involve street running and if they choose narrow roads, then the tram will get caught in traffic. There is no benefit to this tram route over a bus route. In the AdeLINK plan, one of the suggested routes comes very close to Ovingham Station (the blue line). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_ ... /maplink/2

What I suggest is the North Adelaide tram is extended to Ovingham Station. From there, it uses the railway alignment to Dry Creek Station. With the removal of the ARTC line, plus the fact there is already a bit of spare space on the alignment, I think we can easily fit two railway tracks and two tram tracks. ARTC loading gauge is 3.2 m wide, while Adelaide trams are only 2.4 m wide. Trains are then run express from Dry Creek to Adelaide. Trams replace the train stations between Dry Creek and Adelaide.

This has a number of advantages:

• The tram extension is separated from road traffic, speeding up the tram.
• Cheaper to build than the other ProspectLINK suggestions since it doesn't involve ripping up the road or placing rails in the road.
• Extra tram stops can be added where the existing train stations don't serve.
• The tram can use the broad gauge sidings to serve Churchill Centre.
• Trains running express from Dry Creek to Adelaide will be much faster than driving. 4000 class railcars are based on V/Line Vlocity railcars. In Victoria, they are capable of 160 km/h. With track upgrades, the train from Dry Creek to Adelaide could reach 160 km/h.

What about The Ghan, the Indian Pacific and possibly any future regional rail?

Cheers

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 12:56 pm

Ho Really wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 12:14 pm

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 11:25 am

Here is an out there idea:
Suppose the Adelaide Hills bypass is built and also the North Adelaide tram extension is built. These are two projects that the government is somewhat keen to build.

In the AdeLINK plan, the North Adelaide tram is extended through the suburbs to Grand Junction Road. The problem is that it will involve street running and if they choose narrow roads, then the tram will get caught in traffic. There is no benefit to this tram route over a bus route. In the AdeLINK plan, one of the suggested routes comes very close to Ovingham Station (the blue line). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_ ... /maplink/2

What I suggest is the North Adelaide tram is extended to Ovingham Station. From there, it uses the railway alignment to Dry Creek Station. With the removal of the ARTC line, plus the fact there is already a bit of spare space on the alignment, I think we can easily fit two railway tracks and two tram tracks. ARTC loading gauge is 3.2 m wide, while Adelaide trams are only 2.4 m wide. Trains are then run express from Dry Creek to Adelaide. Trams replace the train stations between Dry Creek and Adelaide.

This has a number of advantages:

• The tram extension is separated from road traffic, speeding up the tram.
• Cheaper to build than the other ProspectLINK suggestions since it doesn't involve ripping up the road or placing rails in the road.
• Extra tram stops can be added where the existing train stations don't serve.
• The tram can use the broad gauge sidings to serve Churchill Centre.
• Trains running express from Dry Creek to Adelaide will be much faster than driving. 4000 class railcars are based on V/Line Vlocity railcars. In Victoria, they are capable of 160 km/h. With track upgrades, the train from Dry Creek to Adelaide could reach 160 km/h.

What about The Ghan, the Indian Pacific and possibly any future regional rail?

Cheers

Convert the Adelaide Metro network to standard gauge (we already have gauge convertible sleepers on a large part of the network.) Then the intercity trains can use the Gawler line from Dry Creek to Adelaide Railway Station.

ginzahikari wrote: ↑

Mon May 27, 2019 9:09 pm

Has anyone gone to the Public Transport Forum today? Is there anything special mentioned by Knoll?

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 11:25 am

Goodsy wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 10:47 am

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 10:10 am

I feel that every station between Salisbury and Adelaide would definitely benefit from relocation of the ARTC line. It forms a massive barrier to access and movement, and limits the scope for other improvements; for example, potential passing loops at major stations or platform widening.

Build the Northern Connector rail line and change the gauge of the ARTC line so Gawler trains can use it as a passing loop

Here is an out there idea:
Suppose the Adelaide Hills bypass is built and also the North Adelaide tram extension is built. These are two projects that the government is somewhat keen to build.

In the AdeLINK plan, the North Adelaide tram is extended through the suburbs to Grand Junction Road. The problem is that it will involve street running and if they choose narrow roads, then the tram will get caught in traffic. There is no benefit to this tram route over a bus route. In the AdeLINK plan, one of the suggested routes comes very close to Ovingham Station (the blue line). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_ ... /maplink/2

What I suggest is the North Adelaide tram is extended to Ovingham Station. From there, it uses the railway alignment to Dry Creek Station. With the removal of the ARTC line, plus the fact there is already a bit of spare space on the alignment, I think we can easily fit two railway tracks and two tram tracks. ARTC loading gauge is 3.2 m wide, while Adelaide trams are only 2.4 m wide. Trains are then run express from Dry Creek to Adelaide. Trams replace the train stations between Dry Creek and Adelaide.

This has a number of advantages:

• The tram extension is separated from road traffic, speeding up the tram.
• Cheaper to build than the other ProspectLINK suggestions since it doesn't involve ripping up the road or placing rails in the road.
• Extra tram stops can be added where the existing train stations don't serve.
• The tram can use the broad gauge sidings to serve Churchill Centre.
• Trains running express from Dry Creek to Adelaide will be much faster than driving. 4000 class railcars are based on V/Line Vlocity railcars. In Victoria, they are capable of 160 km/h. With track upgrades, the train from Dry Creek to Adelaide could reach 160 km/h.

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 11:25 am

In the AdeLINK plan, the North Adelaide tram is extended through the suburbs to Grand Junction Road. The problem is that it will involve street running and if they choose narrow roads, then the tram will get caught in traffic. There is no benefit to this tram route over a bus route. In the AdeLINK plan, one of the suggested routes comes very close to Ovingham Station (the blue line). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_ ... /maplink/2

What I suggest is the North Adelaide tram is extended to Ovingham Station. From there, it uses the railway alignment to Dry Creek Station. With the removal of the ARTC line, plus the fact there is already a bit of spare space on the alignment, I think we can easily fit two railway tracks and two tram tracks. ARTC loading gauge is 3.2 m wide, while Adelaide trams are only 2.4 m wide. Trains are then run express from Dry Creek to Adelaide. Trams replace the train stations between Dry Creek and Adelaide.

Ser Noit of Loit wrote: ↑

Sat May 25, 2019 3:58 pm

There's no reason for Hawthorn station to be reopened unless Unley Park shuts down for some reason. It's too close to UP and Mitcham stations and almost surely due to redudancy, shut down in 1995. A station right on Cross Road is also of more use than a suburban back street.