News & Discussion: Infrastructure Australia

[Aidan]

For 25000 kV 50Hz AC electric traction like what we are getting, the average height of the contact wire (in Queensland atleast) is 1m above the roof of the rollingstock. That is only the contact wire, the additional wiring and caternary structures stand even higher so a fair amount of above head clearance is needed. The width of the alignment generally also needs to be wider to take the caternary masts also. Finally, it does help having and alignment with light gradients and curve radius to allow for higher speeds. Sometimes it is better to over engineer things.

Firstly, the average is irrelevant when specifying minimum clearances - it would be stupid to make a cutting deeper just to let the railway go under a bridge at average clearance.
Secondly, how much more do you think it's worth paying to design a passenger railway to freight standards, including double stacking of containers (depite the loading gauge N of Noarlunga being inadequate for that)?
Thirdly, while you are correct about curve radius, light gradients should not be necessary for electric railcars to perform well, especially where (due to station location) they'd be accelerating on a down gradient and decelerating on an up gradient.
Fourthly, yes, sometimes it is better to overengineer things - but this isn't one of those times. When you don't know what the future requirements will be, the Bazalgette principle applies. But in this case we have a pretty good idea of what future requirements will be. And while it makes sense to make provision for the future (e.g. put stations on a straight section at least 300m long to make it easier to extend the platforms) it does not make sense to blow the budget on features that are unlikely to ever be needed.

When London's Piccadilly Line was extended to Heathrow Terminal 4, provision was made for Terminal 5, so the trains went round an unnecessarily large loop (from T4 to T123 via the proposed T5 site) for about 20 years. Meanwhile plans changed, and Terminal 5 was eventually built further W. So remember, spending extra money is not always productive!

BTW I have raised my concerns with DTEI.

[Will409]

There is a minimum clearance standard needed for overhead electrification. Place the wire too low and you will get arcing between the wire and the roof of the EMU. I don't think the passengers inside will be too happy to be zapped with 25,000V, if they are alive. Incase you are wondering, an electric rail vehicle being earthed from the rails has happened before, I have heard a few story's from a few Melbourne tram drivers where the amount of sand dumped on the rail has made the tram earth itself from the rail.

With the exception of high speed passenger railways such as the TGV or German ICE, all railways are built to the same standard.

[Aidan]

There is a minimum clearance standard needed for overhead electrification. Place the wire too low and you will get arcing between the wire and the roof of the EMU.

Of course there is a minimum clearance standard - as I said before, what the average clearance is is of no concern to setting the minimum clearance standard.

I don't think the passengers inside will be too happy to be zapped with 25,000V, if they are alive.

The passengers inside would be fine - the railcar acts as a Faraday's Cage.

Incase you are wondering, an electric rail vehicle being earthed from the rails has happened before, I have heard a few story's from a few Melbourne tram drivers where the amount of sand dumped on the rail has made the tram earth itself from the rail.

That doesn't make sense - do you mean insulate? Too much sand on the rail could well insulate a tram (>1kV) but would be no problem for a train at 25kV.

With the exception of high speed passenger railways such as the TGV or German ICE, all railways are built to the same standard.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous the above statement is? There are enormous differences in loading gauge, maximum gradient and the force the rails themselves can withstand. Struth, it's almost like claiming that all roads are built to the same standard!

[Wilfy 2007]

What happens if Wilfy writes part of it?

"Passenger trains to X, trains to Y, buses to nowhere, a train here, a train there"

....

Somebody,

Be careful you are Dribbling again.

But yes I will be putting in my submission.

Regards,

[drwaddles]

Somebody,

Be careful you are Dribbling again.

Someone get Somebody a bib!

[Aidan]

Somebody,

Be careful you are Dribbling again.

Someone get Somebody a bib!

Dribbling is not permitted in netball.

[Somebody]

Be careful you are Dribbling again.

Like you can talk!

But yes I will be putting in my submission.

Goodie, I can't wait.

[skyliner]

I think the demand for a north-south freeway corridor is much greater than rail investment at this moment in time - the Feds have always been significantly pro-road and will be more likely to throw whatever money around that fuels frieght truck movements as a way of 'economical investment'. I wouldn't be hoping too much for Federal funds into either extension.

'This moment in time' is far too short sighted. Rail fares the the best investment option considering the outlook on fuel, that the problem of traffic supposedly overcome by new roads is as bad in unexpectedly short time and that a linear city like Adelaide is will suited to rail due to 'short distances' re access. Consider this couched in recent Bris. findings - 10% of vehilces are now off the roads due to fuel expenses and the volatility of such combined with general financial shortages. Cheaper options are wanted - the general passenger/driver consensus is going over to rail. People are making a new trend that needs addressing.

NOTE - the above statements are made knowing Bris has a shocker of a transport infastructure relevant to it's needs - planned and addressed too late - to rectify - 67bn. quoted recently up here. Pleeeease let Adelaide not be caught as well.
2ND NOTE - I am a heavily biased rail supporter, but even reading between the lines I think the above statements carry significant merit.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

[Norman]

I posted this on Rail SA, but thought it would be useful here as well.

I found this document online regarding infrastructure projects and why they were chosen. Makes for good reading I think.

Link: http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov. ... rities.pdf

[Shuz]

This caught my eye.

Adelaide rail freight junctions and level crossings (Goodwood and Torrens) The East–West Rail Corridor linking Melbourne–Adelaide–Perth has a primary role of efficiently moving freight. It is currently operationally inefficient and limited in capacity through Adelaide, since longer trains cannot pass due to constrained track geometry. Delays occur at points of intersection with the passenger rail and road network. The initiative provides for new junctions at Goodwood and Torrens via grade separation of the passenger and freight rail lines, relocation of Goodwood passenger station, building of a new passenger station at Bowden, and replacement of a level crossing with a dual carriage way road underpass.

[DM8]

..... building of a new passenger station at Bowden, and replacement of a level crossing with a dual carriage way road underpass.

WOOHOO! That level crossing is a shocker, and the road pavement keeps getting worse every day.

[Howie]

..... building of a new passenger station at Bowden, and replacement of a level crossing with a dual carriage way road underpass.

WOOHOO! That level crossing is a shocker, and the road pavement keeps getting worse every day.

We talking about an underpass here?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source= ... 3&t=h&z=18

[AtD]

If it's at Bowden then I'd assume it's the Park Terrace crossing with the Gawler Line. This is part of the city ring route so that makes sense. That being said, the sentence copied by Shuz is rather vague.

[Howie]

Ah that makes sense. Though they really ought to fix the Torrens crossing too... now that is a shocker in peak hour traffic.

[rev]

..... building of a new passenger station at Bowden, and replacement of a level crossing with a dual carriage way road underpass.

WOOHOO! That level crossing is a shocker, and the road pavement keeps getting worse every day.

We talking about an underpass here?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source= ... 3&t=h&z=18

An underpass of the roadway under the train line, or the trainline under the roadway?
I'd have thought that was Renown Park?

The other one is as AtD said the Gawler line, which Park Tce passes over via a bridge.
Then there is the outer harbour line(?) near the Port Road intersection.

The only one I'd imagine would need upgrading would be the one near Port Road(bring the train line under?) and Torrens Road. Theres four sets of lights in the space of 600m, one being for the train crossing, and if you go a further 200m up the road theres another set of lights for a pedestrian crossing. Thankfully between the school and South Road theres a kilometer of traffic light free travel. Not that it helps when your in the right lane and someone is holding up traffic while waiting for a chance to turn into a side street or property.