News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[ginzahikari]

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

[adelaide transport]

Nothing new.

[ChillyPhilly]

Here are my basic notes on stations of the Gawler line. Includes observations.

'Upgrade' = modernisation, improvements to amenity, platform lengthening.

• 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.

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.

Electrification will also make a massive difference, but the difference it makes needs to be heavily promoted.

[Goodsy]

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

[1NEEDS2POST]

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]

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.

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

Cheers

[1NEEDS2POST]

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

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.

[PD2/20]

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.

And the Adelaide freight traffic to Islington Depot?

We don't have gauge convertible pointwork.

[muzzamo]

Some videos of DPTI's train simulator were put up on their youtube page this week

[ChillyPhilly]

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

InDaily have posted an article with a bit of a summary.

https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2019/ ... ort-knoll/

[Waewick]

Quite a weird article again.

Talks about privitisation, then quotes Knoll talking about Trams and how privitisation is a difficult thing to manage.

Cannot tell what is going through that blokes head

[Joelmark]

Rather than waffling on about trackless trams and on-demand buses the best thing Knoll could do would be to head across the Nullarbor to Perth for a few days - probably the most comparable city to Adelaide in terms of climate, geography and density - and study government owned and run Transperth. It's amazing what can be done to really increase patronage by spending money on line extensions, full electrification, station upgrades and service frequency.

[Westside]

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.

That is an out there suggestion!

If they make the Virginia line past Salisbury dual gauge (like they used to have on the Port Line around Ethelton/Granville), they could create a short spur line to Derek/Burton to serve the new development in those suburbs. A simple platform on a siding off the main line near Edinburgh / Bolivar Rds would do it. Add in an intermediary station on Diment Rd just past Bagster Rd and you could then close Nurlutta Station. You can then run trains all stops ARC to Burton and ARC express Mawson, express Salisbury, all stops to Gawler Central.

Once they move the freight to the Northern Connector rail line, you can then probably extend the line to Virginia if it proves to be a winner. The first part of the plan surely couldn’t be too costly. Adjust a couple of the bus routes to feed the two stations and you now have a much better reach to the massive expansion happening out there.

[Spotto]

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.

The problem with the rail corridor between City and Dry Creek is that it’s too out-of-the-way from anything that can draw passengers. What the ProspectLINK tram seems to try and accomplish is to deliver people to areas populated with shops and entertainment, plus nearby homes a few streets back from Prospect Road. This is something that the rail line does not do.

Trams work best to deliver people to the doorsteps or within short walking distance of shopping, work and entertainment (Jetty Road Glenelg, O’Connell Street, King William Street the proposed city loop). Building one out in the sticks would defeat its primary objective.

[rhino]

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.

Actually IIRC it was due to timetabling. Once the second broad gauge line had been changed to standard gauge for interstate freight (1995), all the Belair services had to fit on one broad gauge line. Timetabling this caused the closure of Millswood, Hawthorn and Clapham stations to be a necessity.