News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[claybro]

A fast tram service to Outer Harbor, Grange and West Lakes would enable a lot more frequent and interconnected service.

And Port Adelaide. If the new Port spur was to be a light rail extension, instead of the heavy rail as proposed, it would be possible for it to continue along St Vincent Street, and be more accessible to people at the Western end of the port, and the Port Mall.

[rubberman]

A fast tram service to Outer Harbor, Grange and West Lakes would enable a lot more frequent and interconnected service.

And Port Adelaide. If the new Port spur was to be a light rail extension, instead of the heavy rail as proposed, it would be possible for it to continue along St Vincent Street, and be more accessible to people at the Western end of the port, and the Port Mall.

And other short branches such as Largs/Semaphore or possibly Bowden. A lot of that Bowden area is still vacant, and a bit of land reservation now for a tram route to serve the developments there might be attractive for developers as well. That would require some planning, though. Oh.

Converting the Outer Harbour line has a lot of benefits, quite apart from the much cheaper costs. However, realistically, it won't be considered until the present diesel railcars come up for replacement, and the cost of new ones plus electrification is something the State government of the day has to deal with. At that point, the much cheaper cost of new trams and tram overhead vs new railcars plus rail overhead for better travel times and more frequent service will probably swing it.

[Nathan]

And other short branches such as Largs/Semaphore or possibly Bowden. A lot of that Bowden area is still vacant, and a bit of land reservation now for a tram route to serve the developments there might be attractive for developers as well. That would require some planning, though. Oh.

Running the tram line into Bowden was originally one of the tabled options for the converting the outer harbour line to light rail, but with the lowered train line having now been done, it wouldn't be possible now— there's no point where the existing tram line could join up at grade. Even as a seperate line going deeper into Bowden the only possible point it could cross over the train line would be Gibson St, and there's no way you'll ever be able to run a tram down that street.

[rubberman]

And other short branches such as Largs/Semaphore or possibly Bowden. A lot of that Bowden area is still vacant, and a bit of land reservation now for a tram route to serve the developments there might be attractive for developers as well. That would require some planning, though. Oh.

Running the tram line into Bowden was originally one of the tabled options for the converting the outer harbour line to light rail, but with the lowered train line having now been done, it wouldn't be possible now— there's no point where the existing tram line could join up at grade. Even as a seperate line going deeper into Bowden the only possible point it could cross over the train line would be Gibson St, and there's no way you'll ever be able to run a tram down that street.

I guess the question is how much vacant/undeveloped land there is that could be acquired and used for a transport corridor. There's still a lot in that area, whether it could be acquired and reserved in time is another matter. But it's a matter of "did we do any planning?" Or is Bowden just going to be another source of cars heading down Port Road to the CBD.

[Nathan]

I guess the question is how much vacant/undeveloped land there is that could be acquired and used for a transport corridor. There's still a lot in that area, whether it could be acquired and reserved in time is another matter. But it's a matter of "did we do any planning?" Or is Bowden just going to be another source of cars heading down Port Road to the CBD.

I doubt you'd increase the catchment in Bowden much by diverting the tram in at any point — I'm pretty much at the further point of the development from the tram stop, and it's only just over a 5 minute walk to the existing terminus. You might get a small increase in people from Brompton though, and some of the older bits of Bowden north of the development (which will soon be rezoned from industrial to residential).

[Goodsy]

How about terminating the Outer Harbor line at the Port Dock station then convert the Outer harbor spur into tram line. Change it up a bit so a tram goes down Commercial road and over the Hart St Bridge instead of the viaduct then run the tram line down Port Road

[1NEEDS2POST]

How is conversion to light rail going to improve speed? Trams and trains would travel at roughly the same speed on the Outer Harbor line. One big downside with light rail conversion with branches is it will necessitate lower frequency on each branch. All of these tram routes will use the same part of the railway line from Woodville into the city. This is redundant and it's more efficient to encourage transfers at the railway stations. The buses or trams then only need to drive to the closest railway station. With shorter routes, the bus or tram can complete the route more frequently.

The ultimate way to rapidly increase frequency is automation. This is because you can add more vehicles without hiring more staff. The Vancouver Skytrain runs at 2 minute frequencies in the peak and it's still reasonably frequent late at night.

Why did I bring this up? Currently, this can only be done with trains on grade separated routes. In recent years a few level crossings have been removed from the Outer Harbor line.

How about terminating the Outer Harbor line at the Port Dock station then convert the Outer harbor spur into tram line. Change it up a bit so a tram goes down Commercial road and over the Hart St Bridge instead of the viaduct then run the tram line down Port Road

Terminating at Port Dock makes the job of automation easier. There are fewer level crossings to remove than doing the whole line.

In summary, I think the planners have this all wrong. What we should aim for is a fully automated, high frequency train to Port Adelaide. This will be followed with automation of the other railway lines. No more waiting a long time for a train!

[rubberman]

How is conversion to light rail going to improve speed? Trams and trains would travel at roughly the same speed on the Outer Harbor line. One big downside with light rail conversion with branches is it will necessitate lower frequency on each branch. All of these tram routes will use the same part of the railway line from Woodville into the city. This is redundant and it's more efficient to encourage transfers at the railway stations. The buses or trams then only need to drive to the closest railway station. With shorter routes, the bus or tram can complete the route more frequently.

The ultimate way to rapidly increase frequency is automation. This is because you can add more vehicles without hiring more staff. The Vancouver Skytrain runs at 2 minute frequencies in the peak and it's still reasonably frequent late at night.

Why did I bring this up? Currently, this can only be done with trains on grade separated routes. In recent years a few level crossings have been removed from the Outer Harbor line.

How about terminating the Outer Harbor line at the Port Dock station then convert the Outer harbor spur into tram line. Change it up a bit so a tram goes down Commercial road and over the Hart St Bridge instead of the viaduct then run the tram line down Port Road

Terminating at Port Dock makes the job of automation easier. There are fewer level crossings to remove than doing the whole line.

In summary, I think the planners have this all wrong. What we should aim for is a fully automated, high frequency train to Port Adelaide. This will be followed with automation of the other railway lines. No more waiting a long time for a train!

On the Outer Harbor line, trams would increase schedule speed because they can out accelerate the much heavier trains. On that line specifically, the stations are so close together that trains cannot generally get up to high enough speeds to outrun the trams before they have to start braking. Then, trams can also brake harder than the much heavier trains, giving them even more of an edge.

Buying trams and electrifying is far cheaper than buying new railcars and electrifying for them. It also uses much less energy, since trams weigh much less.

Also, on the Outer Harbor line, the present numbers of passengers simply don't justify heavy rail. Trams could probably carry three to four times the existing Outer Harbor line patronage.

Your idea of automation is interesting. However, the same idea could still be applied to trams on that corridor, and they'll still be cheaper, faster, and use less energy. That's the crunch. There's simply no way that you can build railcars as cheaply as trams. And the cost difference is savage. The only way heavy rail works is when speeds are high (eliminate half the stations to do it) and passenger numbers triple. At that point heavy rail comes into its own.

That's why they successfully converted the St Kilda and Port Melbourne lines. It's been a success, and nobody is calling for restorstion of heavy rail.

As for lower branch frequency, why would it be less than now? You could simply replace one Grange tram for one Grange train on the time table.

[rhino]

As for lower branch frequency, why would it be less than now? You could simply replace one Grange tram for one Grange train on the time table.

I would also re-route the line around the golf course instead of through it, to make it more accessible (and useful) to more local residents.
The more useful it is, the more patronage.
The more patronage, it's easier to justify greater frequency.
Greater frequency will likely result in even more patronage.

[1NEEDS2POST]

On the Outer Harbor line, trams would increase schedule speed because they can out accelerate the much heavier trains. On that line specifically, the stations are so close together that trains cannot generally get up to high enough speeds to outrun the trams before they have to start braking. Then, trams can also brake harder than the much heavier trains, giving them even more of an edge.

Acceleration and braking limits have nothing to do with the vehicle type. The limits are where standing passengers have an unacceptable risk of injuring themselves. An 1800 m freight train is not going to accelerate fast enough to injure standing passengers, but many DMUs and EMUs can.

There's a science behind how to accelerate and decelerate vehicles as effectively as you can. https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 015-0012-y This is something automation can do much better than human drivers.

That's why they successfully converted the St Kilda and Port Melbourne lines. It's been a success, and nobody is calling for restorstion of heavy rail.

Those routes also spend a large part of their journey on the road, which is where trams have a clear advantage.

As for lower branch frequency, why would it be less than now? You could simply replace one Grange tram for one Grange train on the time table.

That's true. I think the current Grange train should terminate at Woodville. This frees up more trains to run the Outer Harbor line more frequently, plus the Grange train can cover the shorter route more frequently.

[rubberman]

On the Outer Harbor line, trams would increase schedule speed because they can out accelerate the much heavier trains. On that line specifically, the stations are so close together that trains cannot generally get up to high enough speeds to outrun the trams before they have to start braking. Then, trams can also brake harder than the much heavier trains, giving them even more of an edge.

Acceleration and braking limits have nothing to do with the vehicle type. The limits are where standing passengers have an unacceptable risk of injuring themselves. An 1800 m freight train is not going to accelerate fast enough to injure standing passengers, but many DMUs and EMUs can.

There's a science behind how to accelerate and decelerate vehicles as effectively as you can. https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 015-0012-y This is something automation can do much better than human drivers.

That's why they successfully converted the St Kilda and Port Melbourne lines. It's been a success, and nobody is calling for restorstion of heavy rail.

Those routes also spend a large part of their journey on the road, which is where trams have a clear advantage.

As for lower branch frequency, why would it be less than now? You could simply replace one Grange tram for one Grange train on the time table.

That's true. I think the current Grange train should terminate at Woodville. This frees up more trains to run the Outer Harbor line more frequently, plus the Grange train can cover the shorter route more frequently.

Re acceleration. Technically you are correct. However, because of the much greater mass of heavy rail, the energy requirements and the accompanying motor, overhead, feeder and substation costs simply become prohibitive. Sure you could get a railcar to climb an 8% grade with an acceleration of 2kmh/sec, but I'd shudder at the cost. More to the point, so would anybody doing the economic analysis.

[Norman]

I don't think the Outer Harbor line should be converted to light rail for several reasons:

Length
The line is 21km long, and takes 40 minutes on current rolling stock. The Port Melbourne line is 3.5km and the St Kilda line is about 5.5km long. You can't make comparisons between these lines. The Glenelg line is already long enough at 11km, imagine sitting on a tram for that long, especially when half-way though it has to dordle through Port Adelaide and its streets.

Stop Amounts
Light rail traditionally has more stops along the lines, and there aren't many between Croydon and Adelaide. There will most likely be a few extra stops along the line in the conversion from heavy rail to light rail, slowing down services even more.

After Bowden?
Will the line head into the city along the existing corridor, or will it go along Port Road? If it's the former, there will need to be flyovers or underpasses to get them across the Seaford and Belair lines, and complicate things with the future City Loop. If it's the latter, that will add another 10 minutes to the existing trip. It will also render the Torrens Junction project worthless.

Conflicts with planning strategy
As far as I am aware, the plan for housing along the rail line is still centred around activity centres and TODs. These are better served by heavy rail, rather than light rail which is more suited along linear, medium density mixed use corridors.

I know there are positives, such as making the West Lakes line easier to build and the centre of Port Adelaide more accessible, but do they outweigh the negatives? I believe not. The 10,000 workers in those postcodes along the line who work in the City of Adelaide will be disadvantaged.

[ChillyPhilly]

I'm with Norman. The idea to convert the OH line into light rail has always been a stupid one - there's no other word for it, to be blunt. I feel that the fate of this idea was sealed with the Torrens Junction project.

Light rail in the western suburbs is better suited for roads like Woodville Road (Woodville High School, St Clair Rec Centre and residential development, QEH, and of course Woodville railway station) and Kilkenny Road/David Tce (linking to Kilkenny station, a perfect site for a future TOD; encouraging urgently needed urban renewal of Kilkenny and utilisation of Arndale as an activity centre). Possible other options include Hanson and Addison Roads, which are another area in need of revitalisation.

Physically, sending it down the middle of Port Road is probably the best bet, with spur lines to West Lakes, and along the above mentioned roads - but even along there, stops will be limited until the line encourages development of Port Road as a corridor.

Someone remind me and I'll make a map of the above.

I think there is merit in making some form of efficiency improvements to the Grange line, though.

[rubberman]

I don't think the Outer Harbor line should be converted to light rail for several reasons:

Length
The line is 21km long, and takes 40 minutes on current rolling stock. The Port Melbourne line is 3.5km and the St Kilda line is about 5.5km long. You can't make comparisons between these lines. The Glenelg line is already long enough at 11km, imagine sitting on a tram for that long, especially when half-way though it has to dordle through Port Adelaide and its streets.

Stop Amounts
Light rail traditionally has more stops along the lines, and there aren't many between Croydon and Adelaide. There will most likely be a few extra stops along the line in the conversion from heavy rail to light rail, slowing down services even more.

After Bowden?
Will the line head into the city along the existing corridor, or will it go along Port Road? If it's the former, there will need to be flyovers or underpasses to get them across the Seaford and Belair lines, and complicate things with the future City Loop. If it's the latter, that will add another 10 minutes to the existing trip. It will also render the Torrens Junction project worthless.

Conflicts with planning strategy
As far as I am aware, the plan for housing along the rail line is still centred around activity centres and TODs. These are better served by heavy rail, rather than light rail which is more suited along linear, medium density mixed use corridors.

I know there are positives, such as making the West Lakes line easier to build and the centre of Port Adelaide more accessible, but do they outweigh the negatives? I believe not. The 10,000 workers in those postcodes along the line who work in the City of Adelaide will be disadvantaged.

Length. Irrelevant. It's whether light rail can carry the traffic (it can), whether it can match or beat the heavy rail schedules (it can), and whether it's cheaper (it is - by a big margin). Some interurban tramways were/are much longer.

Planning. Whether something is better served by heavy rail depends on whether heavy rail passenger capacity is required. The Outer Harbor line would need to grow by three or four times for that point to be reached.

How would the 10000 workers be disadvantaged? If the travel times are the same or better, why would they care?

All these arguments were trotted out by heavy rail fans for Port Melbourne and St Kilda, and found to have no substance.

Having said that, I don't see this becoming an issue until the present diesel railcars come to the end of their economic life. In regard to that, with the electrification to Gawler, they can mothball those redundant diesel railcars and reintroduce them as others wear out on the non-electric lines. So all this won't come to a head in the next thirty years in all likelihood, as long as there's no major expenditure on the Outer Harbor or Hills lines. The minute the big money needs to be spent on either of those two lines though, and light rail/trams become a very viable alternative.

Chillyphilly. The Torrens Junction project made light rail more viable. There's now no level crossing with heavy rail.

[SRW]

Why does light rail in the western suburbs have to link into the city system? If there's an argument for it among those areas, can't we build it and just interchange with the Outer Harbor line? Heavy rail would appear to be an embedded legacy following the Torrens Junction but will become a unparalleled mode for city commuters once an underground loop is built.