News & Discussion: Regional Transport

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
User avatar
Heardy_101
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:26 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#376 Post by Heardy_101 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:52 pm

Good evening everyone. It's been a while but my associates and I have been working on a few things behind the scenes. So here it is. As part of a much larger plan to ramp things up and hopefully place some pressure on the Government and other political parties, we (SARRA - South Australian Regional Rail Alliance) are pleased to announce a new logo and webpage - we encourage everyone to take a look and tell us what you think!

We would also like to thank everyone for their support and encourage everyone to keep sharing this page with their friends, family and local communities.

www.facebook.com/SARegionalRailAlliance

www.saregionaltrainscampaign.com

Kind Regards
www.facebook.com/SARegionalRailAlliance

www.saregionaltrainscampaign.com

EBG
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2380
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:49 pm
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 1661 times

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#377 Post by EBG » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:04 pm

You should start an urgent campaign to restore services to the Barossa valley before the line is totally over grown. There are already baby pine trees growing within the existing timber sleepers.
If The Barossa Valley was in NSW it would have an hourly service. It is a national disgrace that this line has been allowed to quietly rot away.

User avatar
omada
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Eden Hills
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#378 Post by omada » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:18 am

Agreed re: Barossa Valley line, how handy would it be?

This line is privately owned isn't it?

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#379 Post by Goodsy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:16 am

omada wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:18 am
Agreed re: Barossa Valley line, how handy would it be?

This line is privately owned isn't it?
That might just be the spur to the Penrice Quarry, which isn't in operation anymore

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2962
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#380 Post by rhino » Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:03 pm

I'm pretty sure it's privately owned by ARG, as I believe all the state's broad gauge lines outside the metro area were handed over. ARG then appeared to defer (ignore) maintenance, and when the lines became too unsafe they closed them rather than allow another operator to step in. Hence the amount of grain carted on local council roads these days. Sad.

In the case of the Barossa line, when Penrice no longer required a daily train, I don't know if ARG went looking for other customers or not. I guess not, but that's just an opinion.
cheers,
Rhino

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2118
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 248 times

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#381 Post by claybro » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:31 pm

Just a question on those pushing for rail to Barossa, I thought the growth of the Barossa towns was strictly limited, and therefore not much further growth possible? Regional rail could only really be viable for commuter use to near areas with populations in the 10's of thousands surely. I know a tourist train used to run from Adelaide, but that was not deemed viable, and surely the current population could not support a regular commuter train. Wouldn't it be more feasible running twice daily fast trains to/from Whyalla, including stops at places like Two wells, Virginia, Mallala etc,- towns which surely aren't restricted by growth boundaries.
Fast trains from the Iron Triangle would also be well patronised on football days especially if trains could go directly to Adelaide station.

Similarly if the Overland was redirected through an upgraded SE Mt Gambier line and joined the Portland/Warrnambool/Geelong route, this would enable fast and frequent trains servicing those larger population centres. Connecting Mt Gambier to Western Victoria with a fast train would also be a boon for the South East.

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#382 Post by Goodsy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:39 pm

claybro wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:31 pm
Just a question on those pushing for rail to Barossa, I thought the growth of the Barossa towns was strictly limited, and therefore not much further growth possible? Regional rail could only really be viable for commuter use to near areas with populations in the 10's of thousands surely. I know a tourist train used to run from Adelaide, but that was not deemed viable, and surely the current population could not support a regular commuter train. Wouldn't it be more feasible running twice daily fast trains to/from Whyalla, including stops at places like Two wells, Virginia, Mallala etc,- towns which surely aren't restricted by growth boundaries.
Fast trains from the Iron Triangle would also be well patronised on football days especially if trains could go directly to Adelaide station.

Similarly if the Overland was redirected through an upgraded SE Mt Gambier line and joined the Portland/Warrnambool/Geelong route, this would enable fast and frequent trains servicing those larger population centres. Connecting Mt Gambier to Western Victoria with a fast train would also be a boon for the South East.
Lyndoch, Tanunda, Nuriootpa and Angaston are about 15,000 and there's already an unused railway. going to Whyalla means either building a new line or dealing with freight trains which would have right of way

User avatar
Heardy_101
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:26 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#383 Post by Heardy_101 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:35 pm

EBG wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:04 pm
You should start an urgent campaign to restore services to the Barossa valley before the line is totally over grown. There are already baby pine trees growing within the existing timber sleepers.
If The Barossa Valley was in NSW it would have an hourly service. It is a national disgrace that this line has been allowed to quietly rot away.
We have been quitely doing this as well however the main focus at the moment is the state of the lines which are disgraceful.

If you check out the webpage and facebook page, you'll see why.

We have plenty of support for passenger services, however.
www.facebook.com/SARegionalRailAlliance

www.saregionaltrainscampaign.com

User avatar
Heardy_101
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:26 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#384 Post by Heardy_101 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:36 pm

omada wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:18 am
Agreed re: Barossa Valley line, how handy would it be?

This line is privately owned isn't it?
Leased by Genesee Wyoming Australia.
www.facebook.com/SARegionalRailAlliance

www.saregionaltrainscampaign.com

User avatar
Heardy_101
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:26 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#385 Post by Heardy_101 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:42 pm

rhino wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:03 pm
I'm pretty sure it's privately owned by ARG, as I believe all the state's broad gauge lines outside the metro area were handed over. ARG then appeared to defer (ignore) maintenance, and when the lines became too unsafe they closed them rather than allow another operator to step in. Hence the amount of grain carted on local council roads these days. Sad.

In the case of the Barossa line, when Penrice no longer required a daily train, I don't know if ARG went looking for other customers or not. I guess not, but that's just an opinion.
Yes, GWA (formerly ARG) currently have the lease on the non metro Broad gauge lines (Burra, Balaklava, Kapunda, Barossa) and the Eyre Peninsula. Plus some ex railway corridors.

As a part of this lease there is an agreement in place which states they are supposed to maintain the lines and infrastructure (eg buildings) in clean and good condition, as well as maintaining them in such a way a train can run at two weeks' notice. That's currently not the case and has not been the case for years.
www.facebook.com/SARegionalRailAlliance

www.saregionaltrainscampaign.com

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2118
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 248 times

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#386 Post by claybro » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:02 pm

GoodSmackUp wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:39 pm
claybro wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:31 pm
Just a question on those pushing for rail to Barossa, I thought the growth of the Barossa towns was strictly limited, and therefore not much further growth possible? Regional rail could only really be viable for commuter use to near areas with populations in the 10's of thousands surely. I know a tourist train used to run from Adelaide, but that was not deemed viable, and surely the current population could not support a regular commuter train. Wouldn't it be more feasible running twice daily fast trains to/from Whyalla, including stops at places like Two wells, Virginia, Mallala etc,- towns which surely aren't restricted by growth boundaries.
Fast trains from the Iron Triangle would also be well patronised on football days especially if trains could go directly to Adelaide station.

Similarly if the Overland was redirected through an upgraded SE Mt Gambier line and joined the Portland/Warrnambool/Geelong route, this would enable fast and frequent trains servicing those larger population centres. Connecting Mt Gambier to Western Victoria with a fast train would also be a boon for the South East.
Lyndoch, Tanunda, Nuriootpa and Angaston are about 15,000 and there's already an unused railway. going to Whyalla means either building a new line or dealing with freight trains which would have right of way
15000 scattered over 3 or four towns is nowhere near enough population to warrant a regular train even if the line had been maintained. Re the Whyalla service, I wasn't suggesting that upgrades or duplication would not be required for the track. But a lot of the infrastructure already exists in a corridor that is in good. condition, unlike the Barossa line.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#387 Post by SBD » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:35 am

claybro wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:02 pm
GoodSmackUp wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:39 pm
claybro wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:31 pm
Just a question on those pushing for rail to Barossa, I thought the growth of the Barossa towns was strictly limited, and therefore not much further growth possible? Regional rail could only really be viable for commuter use to near areas with populations in the 10's of thousands surely. I know a tourist train used to run from Adelaide, but that was not deemed viable, and surely the current population could not support a regular commuter train. Wouldn't it be more feasible running twice daily fast trains to/from Whyalla, including stops at places like Two wells, Virginia, Mallala etc,- towns which surely aren't restricted by growth boundaries.
Fast trains from the Iron Triangle would also be well patronised on football days especially if trains could go directly to Adelaide station.

Similarly if the Overland was redirected through an upgraded SE Mt Gambier line and joined the Portland/Warrnambool/Geelong route, this would enable fast and frequent trains servicing those larger population centres. Connecting Mt Gambier to Western Victoria with a fast train would also be a boon for the South East.
Lyndoch, Tanunda, Nuriootpa and Angaston are about 15,000 and there's already an unused railway. going to Whyalla means either building a new line or dealing with freight trains which would have right of way
15000 scattered over 3 or four towns is nowhere near enough population to warrant a regular train even if the line had been maintained. Re the Whyalla service, I wasn't suggesting that upgrades or duplication would not be required for the track. But a lot of the infrastructure already exists in a corridor that is in good. condition, unlike the Barossa line.
How far can single-track running be extended to provide frequent services? It would make sense to extend the Gawler Central services to another station near where the track crosses Lndoch Road at Kalbeeba, but not if that meant the service frequency needed to be halved.

User avatar
Heardy_101
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:26 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#388 Post by Heardy_101 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:01 am

claybro wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:02 pm
GoodSmackUp wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:39 pm
claybro wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:31 pm
Just a question on those pushing for rail to Barossa, I thought the growth of the Barossa towns was strictly limited, and therefore not much further growth possible? Regional rail could only really be viable for commuter use to near areas with populations in the 10's of thousands surely. I know a tourist train used to run from Adelaide, but that was not deemed viable, and surely the current population could not support a regular commuter train. Wouldn't it be more feasible running twice daily fast trains to/from Whyalla, including stops at places like Two wells, Virginia, Mallala etc,- towns which surely aren't restricted by growth boundaries.
Fast trains from the Iron Triangle would also be well patronised on football days especially if trains could go directly to Adelaide station.

Similarly if the Overland was redirected through an upgraded SE Mt Gambier line and joined the Portland/Warrnambool/Geelong route, this would enable fast and frequent trains servicing those larger population centres. Connecting Mt Gambier to Western Victoria with a fast train would also be a boon for the South East.
Lyndoch, Tanunda, Nuriootpa and Angaston are about 15,000 and there's already an unused railway. going to Whyalla means either building a new line or dealing with freight trains which would have right of way
15000 scattered over 3 or four towns is nowhere near enough population to warrant a regular train even if the line had been maintained. Re the Whyalla service, I wasn't suggesting that upgrades or duplication would not be required for the track. But a lot of the infrastructure already exists in a corridor that is in good. condition, unlike the Barossa line.
14 years ago when the Government did 13 surveys and reports (12 of which haven't been released to the public). We spent ages trying to pry just one of those with an FOI request - given it's contents, not surprising.

The one report we got our hands on from around 2003/2004 reccomends an interim Barossa service with 2 trains (one AM, one PM) a day, with further reccomendations that such a service be extended after six months.

Go figure.
www.facebook.com/SARegionalRailAlliance

www.saregionaltrainscampaign.com

User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4443
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 371 times
Been thanked: 529 times

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#389 Post by rev » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:25 am

claybro wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:02 pm
GoodSmackUp wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:39 pm
claybro wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:31 pm
Just a question on those pushing for rail to Barossa, I thought the growth of the Barossa towns was strictly limited, and therefore not much further growth possible? Regional rail could only really be viable for commuter use to near areas with populations in the 10's of thousands surely. I know a tourist train used to run from Adelaide, but that was not deemed viable, and surely the current population could not support a regular commuter train. Wouldn't it be more feasible running twice daily fast trains to/from Whyalla, including stops at places like Two wells, Virginia, Mallala etc,- towns which surely aren't restricted by growth boundaries.
Fast trains from the Iron Triangle would also be well patronised on football days especially if trains could go directly to Adelaide station.

Similarly if the Overland was redirected through an upgraded SE Mt Gambier line and joined the Portland/Warrnambool/Geelong route, this would enable fast and frequent trains servicing those larger population centres. Connecting Mt Gambier to Western Victoria with a fast train would also be a boon for the South East.
Lyndoch, Tanunda, Nuriootpa and Angaston are about 15,000 and there's already an unused railway. going to Whyalla means either building a new line or dealing with freight trains which would have right of way
15000 scattered over 3 or four towns is nowhere near enough population to warrant a regular train even if the line had been maintained. Re the Whyalla service, I wasn't suggesting that upgrades or duplication would not be required for the track. But a lot of the infrastructure already exists in a corridor that is in good. condition, unlike the Barossa line.
There's 20,000 residents in the Barossa region. It's not just about how many people live there, but making it more accessible to tourists and day visitors.

north of gepps cross
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:39 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Regional Rail Transport & Infrastructure

#390 Post by north of gepps cross » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:16 pm

Would love to see 160 km or 200 km traind goin to iron triangle riverland mount gambier it would open up investment in these rural towns in my opinion tourism yes might cost a bit but at least infrastructure is there then . poiticians have no vision sadly lol . just a opinion .

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests