Sensational-Adelaide.com

These aren't rail extensions, lack ambition. How about an entire 22km main line instead !

Here is my submission to state railway inquiry, as per its limited terms of reference. As I suggested this extension to Dennis Hill (family first mp) who launched this enquiry.

Slightly altered version to remove my person details.
rail_submission_forums.pdf <- sadly the website hosting this is down

Maps made by me using 3d software and paint stop pro, seeing as no suitable maps existed.
Still need to make higher resolution maps for the media to use. Ask me before re-publishing this document.

Philip Frensham has sent me a message to say the next Committee meeting is 29th of October, this Wednesday, and this submission is on the agenda for that meeting.

it could be just my connection but that link doesn't seem to work

I like your proposal Fabricator. Your 3-D imaging looks great.
My suggestion is not bother with an underground station at Flagstaff Hill due to the cost of underground stations, but a great idea anyway

Split topic.

The underground station at Flagstaff Hill serves three functions:
1) Underground station
2) Mid point Emergency Exit for tunnel system
3) 25kv connection to adjacent above ground substation

Being from O'Halloran Hill, this sounds great.

A station close to Hilltop Shops would be good for me... cheers.

Having lived down Noarlunga way for years, I didn't even need to think too hard about where stations should go, or the grade of the old Willunga line.

Basically stations are located near shops, existing bus interchanges, or just large groups of houses. Having shops means people can buy a ticket before they board, seems to help with patronage as well. Also thought about things like uses buses to link the east and west lines, which means having stations near main roads.

I've been working on plans for some of the stations themselves today actually, Just basic things like layout and location to start with. Going to have fun with the underground station, might as well try some new ideas on that.

fabricator -

Your rail route looks exceedingly long and expensive compared with my preferred alternative of running the railway alongside the Southern Expressway, where the work could be combined with other upgrading work (such as duplication and adding a Majors Road entrance/exit). The part of Flagstaff Hill your line would serve is already well served by public transport, including the express buses from Aberfoyle Park to the City, so I can't really see much of an advantage.

What is your reason for choosing this less direct route?

Aidan, a rail corridor adjacent the Southern Expressway is unviable because of the gradient, just as a rail corridor via the South Eastern freeway is unviable due to the gradient. Why people are making these ridicolous conceptions that because a freeway is there, a railway line should be there also? It appears that there is a subconcious fantasy in ones mind that wants to derive Perth's PT success and implement it here - which is like comparing apples to oranges. We have a completely different layout, different lifestyle, different commuter needs, etc.

Fabricators idea is very well supported because it utilises an existing rail corridor, and is heavily backed by years of planning studies into the extension of the Tonsley line. The only speculative part is connecting the two.

Shuz wrote:Aidan, a rail corridor adjacent the Southern Expressway is unviable because of the gradient, just as a rail corridor via the South Eastern freeway is unviable due to the gradient.

The Southern Expressway is not as steep as the South Eastern Freeway, and the railway would not have to follow the same vertical alignment. For example, it could go over Seacombe Road rather than under it.

Why people are making these ridicolous conceptions that because a freeway is there, a railway line should be there also? It appears that there is a subconcious fantasy in ones mind that wants to derive Perth's PT success and implement it here - which is like comparing apples to oranges. We have a completely different layout, different lifestyle, different commuter needs, etc.

Perth has proved that a railway with few stations, running beside a freeway, is very effective at attracting passengers. I know this isn't Perth, but it doesn't need to be - this particular line would fit Adelaide's commuter needs very well!

Fabricators idea is very well supported because it utilises an existing rail corridor,

As does mine - the main difference is that mine reaches it by a faster route.

and is heavily backed by years of planning studies into the extension of the Tonsley line. The only speculative part is connecting the two.

Are you sure about that? Because if the studies were done than the DTEI must have been sitting on them! They aren't in any library - not even the Transport Systems Centre library at UniSA (which has hundreds of that kind of report). In fact when I searched the TSC library for plans to extend the Tonsley Line, the only report that even mentioned the possibility of extending it beyond Bedford Park was:
Public Transport Design Implications for the Southern Expressway: report to the Department
of Transport and Passenger Transport Board South Australia by Rust PPK Pty Ltd, 1995.
...and that report mentioned, but did not evaluate, extending it alongside the Southern Expressway to reach the old Willunga Line route.

A railway build alongside the Southern Expressway would have to contend with grades in the order of 7 - 8%. Those grades are much higher than the maximum allowable for a railway.

Also the success of Perth's railway had more to do with high average speed obtained due to the generous spacing of stations in addition to the availability of frequent bus transfers and large car parks than the fact it runs down the middle of a freeway.

bs wrote:A railway build alongside the Southern Expressway would have to contend with grades in the order of 7 - 8%. Those grades are much higher than the maximum allowable for a railway.

Allowable by who? Although it's very steep for a railway, it's still technically feasible.

Also the success of Perth's railway had more to do with high average speed obtained due to the generous spacing of stations in addition to the availability of frequent bus transfers and large car parks than the fact it runs down the middle of a freeway.

Of course it did, but the fact remains that it's attractive to passengers because it's fast and direct.

Aidan wrote: Allowable by who? Although it's very steep for a railway, it's still technically feasible.

Conventional railways are limited to grades no greater than about 3.5%.

Achieving that grade for a line adjacent to the southern expressway would be very difficult/expensive given how steep the terrain is in that area.

The Belair line has a continuous grade of 1:45 (2.2%), max speeds to be expected in real world conditions (eg overland with one NR loco) is 60km/hr. Noarlunga has a short section of 1:35 but best to stick with 1:45.

1:45 means for each meter of elevation, you need 45 meters of track.
Or put another way, to climb 100 meters 4.5 km of track.

Tonsley is +40 and Glenthorne is +180, so height is 140m.
Hence 140m x 45 = 6.3km of track to get to the top of the hill. Add a few hundred meters to that so stations aren't up hill.

Overall its a decent solution, 4km of tunnel is a pain, but I'm sure it could be built cheaper with use of a tunnelling machine borrowed from interstate. Still the curves in the track are high speed and the earth works are fairly non offensive.

8% is 1:12.5, which no conventional train could climb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saluda_Grade steepest grade standard-gauge mainline railway grade in the United States, highest official grade of 4.7% but reaching 5.1% at one point.
to get to 7-8% you'd have to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_railways or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_railway

My contact in Parliament was told by transport department engineers it isn't possible to climb that hill. I think that proves they haven't considered modern engineering methods, like tunnelling machines or subways. The extension will be electric from day one, so exhaust fumes aren't an issue.

fabricator wrote:8% is 1:12.5, which no conventional train could climb.

Actually there are railways in Switzerland with grades of 1 in 11 worked by adhesion alone. That's generally regarded as the absolute limit for loco hauled trains, though with distributed power you can get slightly steeper (and IIRC a few light railways do).

Obviously we wouldn't want gradients of 8% - that would unduly restrict our choice of rollingstock, and it would prevent the trains from reaching a decent speed. But the same can not be said of 5% gradients.

Ultimately it's a tradeoff of earthworks against speed, and we may well be better off using long tunnels. But we should never confuse technical possibilities with artificial restrictions!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saluda_Grade steepest grade standard-gauge mainline railway grade in the United States, highest official grade of 4.7% but reaching 5.1% at one point.

Yes, but we neither need nor want a mainline railway. It's a suburban electric railway that we require!

My contact in Parliament was told by transport department engineers it isn't possible to climb that hill. I think that proves they haven't considered modern engineering methods, like tunnelling machines or subways. The extension will be electric from day one, so exhaust fumes aren't an issue.

It's a similar story with the Noarlunga line extension to Seaford: both the DTEI and PB alignments cost far more than they should because they're designed to freight specifications. Only it's sillier on the Seaford line, because the trains will be accelerating on the way down and decelerating on the way up!