News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[ChillyPhilly]

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.

Shouldn't we have an interchangeable tram network too?

One thing that we as advocates of public transport need to encourage, is making/keeping mode change as smooth as possible.

[rubberman]

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.

You could convert the Outer Harbor and Hills lines to light rail and use those as the basis for an underground loop vastly cheaper than heavy rail. I'd also point out that there's nothing stopping the lines being changed back to heavy rail in 80-100 years if traffic grew sufficiently.

I know heavy rail enthusiasts want to see heavy rail everywhere. However, most people don't care whether it's heavy or light rail as long as they get where they want to go. They won't countenance paying extra if they don’t see a benefit.

[Llessur2002]

Whilst the article title is focused on bus routes, it is the potentially more permanent impact to rail services that's more worrying. Reducing train routes is fairly significant as unless they're talking about reducing frequency doesn't this essentially equate to closing a line? There aren't many to choose from - could this be the end of the Grange line?

I love how the Libs talk about having a 'strong plan to improve the public transport network' but somehow think they can do this by cutting services...

Some bus routes will be scrapped in Government’s drive for savings

BUS routes and train services with low patronage will be scrapped as the State Government seeks to improve efficiencies in the public transport network.

Routes with low passenger numbers will become a casualty as the State Government tries to find $715 million in savings by 2021-22 to deliver on other priorities in its first State Budget since returning to power.

Transport Minister Stephan Knoll said discontinuing some bus routes would deliver a $1.1 million saving in this financial year and would increase to $14.8 million per annum — indexed to CPI — from 2019-20.

“The Marshall Liberal Government has a strong plan to improve the public transport network and deliver a better service for South Australians,” he said.

Just what routes will be scrapped will depend on a pending review of the state’s public transport services.

Budget papers say duplicated and poorly patronised services across the bus and rail network will be reviewed.

Opportunities to improve timetables and leveraging bus contractors’ expertise to identify changes that will benefit commuters will also be sought.

The Budget also includes $2.5 million to establish the South Australian Public Transport Authority, and $100,000 to install 10 mobile phone charging stations at suburban train stations.

Mr Knoll said the creation of SAPTA would transform the public transport network into one that would be more “reliable, accessible and better suits the needs of South Australians”.

The review of the bus and rail routes that could be scrapped will prepare for the creation of SAPTA.

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 275022d4ff

[Joelmark]

Not really sure where there are train services to cut considering some were only extended to half hourly on weeknights and weekends a few months ago.

[SRW]

You could convert the Outer Harbor and Hills lines to light rail and use those as the basis for an underground loop vastly cheaper than heavy rail. I'd also point out that there's nothing stopping the lines being changed back to heavy rail in 80-100 years if traffic grew sufficiently.

If/when an underground city loop is built, it will be built primarily for the Seaford/Gawler lines. Outer Harbor will be able to piggyback the benefit.

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.

Shouldn't we have an interchangeable tram network too?

Should we? The arguments I've seen made for trams in the western suburbs are predicated on connectivity between the commercial centres of that region (ie West Lakes-Port-Semaphore). I imagine there's little need for such a system to directly connect to Glenelg, but the catchment of a western suburbs tram could reach the city via the existing heavy rail line with interchanges at Woodville and the Port.

[rubberman]

You could convert the Outer Harbor and Hills lines to light rail and use those as the basis for an underground loop vastly cheaper than heavy rail. I'd also point out that there's nothing stopping the lines being changed back to heavy rail in 80-100 years if traffic grew sufficiently.

If/when an underground city loop is built, it will be built primarily for the Seaford/Gawler lines. Outer Harbor will be able to piggyback the benefit.

Will it?

I would not be so confident of predicting what might happen twenty, thirty or forty years from now. Of course, we can all dream, but realistically the State simply doesn't have the money for everyone's dreams.

I personally would prefer something much cheaper, like converting the Hills and Outer Harbor lines to light rail, integrating with existing trams and making a city loop based on light rail with the option of re-converting to heavy rail IF the patronage warranted it.

The reason for this is that since it's far cheaper, there's a much greater chance that it will happen, PLUS if the patronage grows, it can re-convert to heavy rail, and you get your dream. But insist dogmatically that it MUST be heavy rail, and you might he howling at the moon forever, and shuffle off this mortal coil disappointed.

Whatever, none of this is happening while there's still life in the existing diesel railcar fleet. While they are running, the government doesn't have to spend any money on Outer Harbor or Hills electrification, or conversion to trams. So, if a government doesn't have to spend anything, and can kick a decision down the road, it has other priorities.

So, interesting discussion going here, but whichever way it goes we are possibly talking 20 years before it's even thought about at government level. We can afford to keep it light.

[AndyWelsh]

Whilst the article title is focused on bus routes, it is the potentially more permanent impact to rail services that's more worrying. Reducing train routes is fairly significant as unless they're talking about reducing frequency doesn't this essentially equate to closing a line? There aren't many to choose from - could this be the end of the Grange line?

I love how the Libs talk about having a 'strong plan to improve the public transport network' but somehow think they can do this by cutting services...

“Budget papers say duplicated and poorly patronised services across the bus and rail network will be reviewed.”

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 275022d4ff

My understanding is they’re talking about rail services not whole routes to help drive efficiencies. An example of this recently was how peak services for many smaller Seaford Line stations were cut to and from the city. The thinking being that it is more efficient to simply run express services between bigger hub stations without letting commuters and school kids on and off at the smaller stations.

I was part of a campaign to reinstate one of the cut morning services and many groups and residents associations on the Seaford Line are monitoring this closely.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Llessur2002]

My understanding is they’re talking about rail services not whole routes to help drive efficiencies.

I hope so...

The article does talk very specifically of routes, not services - but hopefully this is just poor quality NewCorp journalism.

[claybro]

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.

You could convert the Outer Harbor and Hills lines to light rail and use those as the basis for an underground loop vastly cheaper than heavy rail. I'd also point out that there's nothing stopping the lines being changed back to heavy rail in 80-100 years if traffic grew sufficiently.

I know heavy rail enthusiasts want to see heavy rail everywhere. However, most people don't care whether it's heavy or light rail as long as they get where they want to go. They won't countenance paying extra if they don’t see a benefit.

What enthusiasts of maintaining OH as heavy rail fail to realise is that if the existing line is converted electrified, it will only mean an upgrade to new rolling stock, and some minor improvements to the existing stations, and maybe 1 or 2 station closures. It will not be astronomically faster (station distance is too short) and for all purposes will operate exactly as now. A lot of money to spend for essentially the same service, and patronage will not really increase enough to warrant the cost. Once this line is converted to heavy rail, there will be little impetus to create a light rail network branching to nearby centres such as West Lakes...at best they may just operate buses to feed into main stations like Woodville. On the other hand, conversion to light rail, as rubberman points out will be cheaper for the main line, all stations will be upgraded by necessity as the old platforms are unworkable for light rail, and there will be a strong case for light rail to surrounding areas therefore allowing single seat travel.

[rev]

Why not close some of the stations along the OH line, such as West Croydon and Woodville Park, and remove the spur line to Grange as part of the train network.
Continue the tram line from the Entertainment Center down the center of Port Road, and go left at West Lakes Blvd where the Grange line currently runs...

[Llessur2002]

Why not close some of the stations along the OH line, such as West Croydon and Woodville Park, and remove the spur line to Grange as part of the train network.
Continue the tram line from the Entertainment Center down the center of Port Road, and go left at West Lakes Blvd where the Grange line currently runs...

I quite like that idea - although I thought one of the main problems in running down the centre of Port Road is the myriad of non-signalised road crossings of the centre median that exist along this stretch. Perhaps most of these could be removed and some of the larger, signalised crossings be updated with good quality U-turn facilities as per Queen Street?

An extended Port Road line would massively help increase the vibrancy of the Port Road commercial centre at Hindmarsh (so much opportunity here for a shopping and leisure strip), encourage medium density developments along Port Road plus provide an easy connection for local residents to Welland Plaza.

[PeFe]

I have resisted entering this debate......until now.

Point1 : The heavy rail vs light rail debate was covered extensively in the trams forum maybe 18 months.....pages and pages and pages discussing the
same arguments. I was so tempted to copy and paste previous posts because of the "groundhog day" nature of the debate.

Point 2 : Why rebuid a functioning rapid rail line (the Outer Harbor line) without extrememly good reason? My guess a light rail conversion plus
Grange/West Lakes/Semaphore trams would cost $600-$800 million (?) At this point in time there is no money (or will from the Liberal
Government) to even do a simple electrification of the line. ($160 million?)

Point 3 : Patronage of the Outer Harbor line, low at the moment, what can be done? Well that's kinda obvious, decrease the number of stations speeding
up the line, rebuild a fair number of stations to increase "attractiveness" of the line and increase development around the existing stations.
Bowden Tod is well under way, hopefully initiating futher development around Kilkenny (this site has huge population potential) Woodville, Port
Adelaide, Port Dock and maybe futher up the Le Fevre peninsula.

Point 4 : The issue of trams/light rail entering the CBD.......Bowden to Adelaide station is 5 minutes (according to train timetable) the tram from the
Entertainment Centre to Adelaide Station is 11 minutes ( but traffic constantly makes this slower) In fact the DPTI report into the intial proposal in
2009 of converting Outer Harbor to light rail pointed out that the travel times from further out would be slower than the current heavy rail.

From the DPTI report.....
Option 1 = all tram lines to Outer Harbor/Grange/West Lakes
Option 2 = electrification of current heavy rail
Option 3/4 + tram down Grange Road to Grange and/or West Lakes
0= same travel time +2 = much faster travel time -2 +slower travel time or not applicable

Unfortunately I can no longer find this document on the DPTI website ( I down loaded it to my computer years ago)

PortLINK
Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report
PortLINK is the most difficult route to compare due to the range of options and the inclusion of the existing heavy rail corridor. The various options also provide access from a range of origins. For the travel time summary, each option has been assessed for the following five origins: Outer Harbour, Port Adelaide, West Lakes Interchange, Grange and Semaphore. Not all options have links from all five of these origins and arrival points in the city from each of these origins also vary. These arrival points are Adelaide Railway Station (heavy rail), ARS tram stop (on North Terrace outside the Railway Station) and a potential future tram stop on King William Road north of North Terrace. All Options were scored for each of the five origins and the overall score for the Option was derived as an average of these. If an origin is not served, the Option is awarded the lowest (-2) score.

Peak hour assessment shows that no Option provides improved travel times for all origins. The scale of travel time savings achieved via electrification of heavy rail on the existing rail lines, Option 2 is awarded the best overall scores despite not delivering services from two of the five origins. Option 1 provides the best overall service delivery (access to all origins by rail transport), closely followed by Option 3. Corridor Option Port Adelaide Outer Harbour Grange West Lakes Semaphore MCA Score
PortLINK 1
Peak
0
-1
-1
2
0
0
PortLINK 2
Peak
2
1
2
-2
-2
1
PortLINK 3
Peak
-2
-1
-2
1
-1
-1
PortLINK 4
Peak
0
-1
-2
0
-2
-1

And now back to reality land...is the Grange train line about to get the chop?
The crrent SA government want to cut low patronage bus and train services so is Grange in danger?

[claybro]

Point 2 : Why rebuid a functioning rapid rail line (the Outer Harbor line) without extrememly good reason? My guess a light rail conversion plus
Grange/West Lakes/Semaphore trams would cost $600-$800 million (?) At this point in time there is no money (or will from the Liberal
Government) to even do a simple electrification of the line. ($160 million?)

Why rebuild a functioning rapid rail line? Because it has to be rebuilt anyway, within 20 years, and it is not rapid, and wont really be even when electrified. I doubt $160Mil would even come close for heavy rail. And the federal government will want to fund some sort of rail in Adelaide soon.-They are screaming to fund metro rail projects. So, as a start, since we would be virtually ripping out the existing system to replace it with something that is pretty much the same, a beginning would be replacing the main corridor with light rail, with the eventual aim of connecting the other areas.
As far as access to the CBD, as a start why cant a light rail use the existing parklands line into Adelaide station?
Also, as has shown, upgrade to the Seaford line has not dramatically increased rail patronage, or dramatically sped up travel time- and very few stations were seriously upgraded, however, upgrading the existing Glenelg tram, has made it now the most patronised mode of transport. It is popular, way more than the trains, even without large scale urbanisation along its corridor so far. This would be repeated with OH.

[Llessur2002]

And now back to reality land...is the Grange train line about to get the chop?
The crrent SA government want to cut low patronage bus and train services so is Grange in danger?

How would the line cope with the addition of the Port Dock spur (if that's still going ahead)? Could they still run the OH and Grange lines at 30 minute intervals and then a third line at similar intervals, or would deleting the Grange line make this much easier? Presumably rolling stock wouldn't be an issue as there will be a surplus of 3000-class units once the Gawler line is electrified.

Perhaps the long-term plan is to essentially replace the Grange services with the Port Dock services, keeping the overall frequency of trains on the line the same?

[Nathan]

The other issue with running the tram further down Port Rd is access. The signalised crossings to access the current Entertainment Centre, Bonython Park and Thebarton stops massively favour vehicle traffic and take a very long time to change to green for pedestrians (and then only for the briefest amount of time). People missing trams that they should easily have made is a very regular occurrence.

Of course, the simple fix is to change the timings on all those crossings, but then you're going to impact car traffic.