[U/C] Ovingham Level Crossing Removal | $231m

[PD2/20]

On the plus side, with how far behind the Gawler line electrification is, the construction of this overpass isn’t causing additional line closures.

Could it be that the Ovingham work was a factor in the indefinite extension of the line closure from the last stated resumption date of November 2021? The lift yesterday required possession of the track adjacent to the new girders. Similar possessions will be needed this week for the second pair of eastern girders and for the spans over the track which I understand will be installed next week.

[ralmin]

The freight line surely remains open most of the time. If so the Ovingham level crossing removal project would need occasional line closures to prevent freight trains passing through when they need to work around/over the line.

[Llessur2002]

From today:

[SBD]

The freight line surely remains open most of the time. If so the Ovingham level crossing removal project would need occasional line closures to prevent freight trains passing through when they need to work around/over the line.

I don't think the line is operated at capacity so it is possible there are sufficient gaps to not interrupt the freight? It might be closed for blocks of four-six hours, not days/weeks at a time.

[EBG]

Some pictures from Saturday 4/12/212- looking from west to east.

[VLtom]

Some pictures from Saturday 4/12/212- looking from west to east.

Real shame about the lack of future proofing for double stacked freight trains, with how low this bridge will be and limited options to lower the tracks through this section

[PD2/20]

Real shame about the lack of future proofing for double stacked freight trains, with how low this bridge will be and limited options to lower the tracks through this section

How does this line up with Norman's post earlier in this thread? There are a number of locations such as KIlburn, Greenfields and Parafield Gardens where double stacked trains on the ARTC line pass under overhead gantries.

[PD2/20]

Some pictures from Saturday 4/12/212- looking from west to east.

The girder lift planned for this afternoon was postponed until Monday because of wind conditions.

[SBD]

Real shame about the lack of future proofing for double stacked freight trains, with how low this bridge will be and limited options to lower the tracks through this section

How does this line up with Norman's post earlier in this thread? There are a number of locations such as KIlburn, Greenfields and Parafield Gardens where double stacked trains on the ARTC line pass under overhead gantries.

The bridge appears to be high enough to go above the catenary wires for the electric trains. I have no idea what clearances are needed for double containers, nor for the electrification.

UPDATE: DPTI shows the electric wire is 5200mm above the track, and the poles are 8000mm high. https://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/asset ... ow_Res.pdf

Several sources seem to suggest that clearance required for double stacked containers is 7100mm above the rails. For example https://www.australasiantransportresear ... Leviny.pdf seems to indicate that is the dynamic envelope height required, not just the height of the train.

I think that means they should fit.

[VLtom]

Real shame about the lack of future proofing for double stacked freight trains, with how low this bridge will be and limited options to lower the tracks through this section

How does this line up with Norman's post earlier in this thread? There are a number of locations such as KIlburn, Greenfields and Parafield Gardens where double stacked trains on the ARTC line pass under overhead gantries.

The bridge appears to be high enough to go above the catenary wires for the electric trains. I have no idea what clearances are needed for double containers, nor for the electrification.

UPDATE: DPTI shows the electric wire is 5200mm above the track, and the poles are 8000mm high. https://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/asset ... ow_Res.pdf

Several sources seem to suggest that clearance required for double stacked containers is 7100mm above the rails. For example https://www.australasiantransportresear ... Leviny.pdf seems to indicate that is the dynamic envelope height required, not just the height of the train.

I think that means they should fit.

That would be the case if the pole was completely under the the bottom of the bridge, but it is not. More recent photos show how the catenary pole is placed between the bridge girders to only give clearance to the wires and their supporting structure. The pole was specially modified (return and earth wires have been lowered from their usual position) to fit under the bridge and so the catenary doesn't have to actually be attached to the bridge itself. This means there will probably be 5-6m clearance on the ARTC tracks, which is more than disappointing but hardly surprising. You're right about 7.1 being the envelope required though, the actual maximum height for ARTC trains is 6.5m from memory. I think regardless it's safe to say Adelaide will never get double stacked freight on the south line, when Inland Rail opens in by 2027 (Melbourne - Parkes section should be done a few years earlier then that) most freight Melbourne - Perth will go via Parkes not Adelaide, except maybe some superfreighter stuff. Getting double stacked freight shouldn't be a massive priority really (and the feds probably wouldn't want to fund it), and there are other improvements that should and can be made to that line regardless, but it'll still be a missed opportunity.

[ChillyPhilly]

Double stacked freight doesn't even fit under the Park Terrace bridge, so why would it be needed for the Ovingham crossing? This would need to be amended first.

Ideally, we should be removing freight from entering Adelaide via the Hills, and instead constructing a new entry that is more efficient.

The ARTC line is a significant barrier in some areas of Adelaide, and inhibits full use/better development along metropolitan passenger lines.

Freight can still enter from the north.

[PD2/20]

Double stacked freight doesn't even fit under the Park Terrace bridge, so why would it be needed for the Ovingham crossing? This would need to be amended first.

Ideally, we should be removing freight from entering Adelaide via the Hills, and instead constructing a new entry that is more efficient.

The ARTC line is a significant barrier in some areas of Adelaide, and inhibits full use/better development along metropolitan passenger lines.

Freight can still enter from the north.

The ARTC standards for the DIRN (Defined Interstate Rail Network), which Melbourne-Adelaide -Crystal Brook is part of, specifies double stacking clearances for new structures but not for existing structures. This makes sense as bridges are long lived assets and allows for eventual deployment of double stacking south of Islington Terminal.

The ARTC track under Park Terrace is visibly lower (~0.5m?) than the DIT tracks.

[Norman]

Almost all of the beams have now been installed.

[marbles]

that bridge dont look too high, look at the height of the truck to the bridge. gotta get trains under there

but yes probs just the camera angle

so the obvious reply is..."yea just the camera angle"

[ralmin]

This level crossing replacement seems to be coming along quite quickly. I was surprised to see a sign saying completion date March 2023.

Compared with at the overpass installation for R2P at Regency Road, once the bridge went in, it seemed to open to traffic within just a month or two.

On the other hand this project still has 15 months to go. There must be a lot more work involved after the bridge goes in.