News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[PeFe]

Grade separation is probably more important if you want to increase frequency on the Flinders/Seaford line at this time....

[Llessur2002]

Strip footings are currently being dug in the Adelaide railway yard on the opposite side of the tracks to the existing control centre.

Is there a new facility being put in here when the old one is closed to make way for the new SAHMRI 2 building? I thought it was going further afield to Dry Creek or something...

[dbl96]

That looks perfect for light rail which deals far better with closely spaced stops and rather winding routes.

This route is more suitable for heavy rail/metro than light rail for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the route is quite long and remote. Light rail has slower overall speeds and capacity, resulting in increased travel times and decreased comfort for passengers over long distances.

Secondly, it is unclear how a light-rail converted Tonsley line would connect to the Adelaide city centre. A few years back the government toyed with the idea of tram-trains, which could share the rail corridor from Ascot Park, but this was found to be impractical for many reasons, including that trams and trains would not be able to use the same platforms due to differences in height. Why invest money in such expensive alterations to the line that would only result in reduced speed, comfort and capacity to passengers?

Finally, station density would not be very high overall. My station placements were indicative, and the number of stations on the segment between Reynella and Hackam (the densest section) could potentially be reduced. But even on this section, stations are spaced at 1200m apart - significantly further apart than the average on Adelaide's network, and at least twice as far apart as what is typical for light rail. Elsewhere on the line, like between Flinders University and Happy Valley, stations are spaced on average around 3.5 km apart - far further than is ideal for light rail. Again, there is some potential for additional stations, but the nature of this section of the route probably does not warrant it.

Presently, station spacings on the Adelaide rail system are insanely close to each other. This destroys the economics of heavy rail, and therefore becomes a huge impediment to any expansion. Those short distances mean much lower speeds, and much more money spent on station infrastructure. The end result is that the economics of any extension are so bad that proposals get filed away as uneconomic. If someone wants to torpedo a project, then the easiest way to do it is make it uneconomic. Further, it enables public servants who don't like heavy rail to put up massively overpriced schemes, which then get canned...just as they wanted. Then, when someone else comes up with a similar scheme, they can smugly say to the Minister that this is similar to a previous uneconomic scheme, and here is a patronising letter to the scheme proponent. Enough of this, and the Minister comes round to the official view of rail extensions only if they are token lengths. We are not there yet. The extensions to Noarlunga Centre and Seaford have it right in my opinion. That's heavy rail doing what it should.

I agree, station placements on the Adelaide network are very close together. That's why I placed the stations as far apart as I did. Besides Flinders/Flinders University, all stations in my proposal are placed a minimum of 1200m apart - the approximate distance between Seaford and Seaford Meadows stations, and between Noarlunga and Christies Downs stations on the extensions you mention. That distance appears to be the standard for new suburban railway construction.

Flinders and Flinders University Stations are slightly closer (approximately 1000m), but this is still further apart than the average on the Adelaide network, and justifiable considering that both of these stations are at major activity centres, and because most other stations are far further apart.


The idea that infrastructure needs to be "economic" at the time it is built, is a major hold-back to the general progress and economic development of Australia. It is essentially based in the neoliberal idea that supply is only good if it satisfies existing demand. The effect of this kind of thinking is that new infrastructure is only built when the existing infrastructure is crowded, far past capacity to breaking point. It does not allow infrastructure to be built in order to better prepare for future needs.

Countries like China, which build infrastructure to promote development, rather than to compensate for it, have been able to boost growth and competitiveness, while countries with attitudes like Australia are left incurring massive costs from congestion and unrealised productivity.

Public transport is a public service. It is not generally profitable, not should it have to be. Investment in public transport should be about improving mobility across the city, with regard to promoting and facilitating the overall development of the city.

[Goodsy]

If we're taking future development into account, or using a rail line to promote development then a new northern line would make more sense. Either doubling the Gawler line to Dry Creek with a new line across the salt flats which would continue north serving Bolivar/Burton, Virginia, Two Wells and perhaps Mallala. Or doubling the track to Salisbury with a new branch following the ATRC freight corridor all the way to Two Wells/Mallala.

Just for reference, a line all the way to Balaclava would be shorter than the Mandurah Railway Line in Perth, admittedly the Mandurah Line already had potential commuters ready to go. But hey, getting our country towns connected to the city wouldn't be a bad thing

[rubberman]

This route is more suitable for heavy rail/metro than light rail for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the route is quite long and remote. Light rail has slower overall speeds and capacity, resulting in increased travel times and decreased comfort for passengers over long distances.

Secondly, it is unclear how a light-rail converted Tonsley line would connect to the Adelaide city centre. A few years back the government toyed with the idea of tram-trains, which could share the rail corridor from Ascot Park, but this was found to be impractical for many reasons, including that trams and trains would not be able to use the same platforms due to differences in height. Why invest money in such expensive alterations to the line that would only result in reduced speed, comfort and capacity to passengers?

Finally, station density would not be very high overall. My station placements were indicative, and the number of stations on the segment between Reynella and Hackam (the densest section) could potentially be reduced. But even on this section, stations are spaced at 1200m apart - significantly further apart than the average on Adelaide's network, and at least twice as far apart as what is typical for light rail. Elsewhere on the line, like between Flinders University and Happy Valley, stations are spaced on average around 3.5 km apart - far further than is ideal for light rail. Again, there is some potential for additional stations, but the nature of this section of the route probably does not warrant it.

Presently, station spacings on the Adelaide rail system are insanely close to each other. This destroys the economics of heavy rail, and therefore becomes a huge impediment to any expansion. Those short distances mean much lower speeds, and much more money spent on station infrastructure. The end result is that the economics of any extension are so bad that proposals get filed away as uneconomic. If someone wants to torpedo a project, then the easiest way to do it is make it uneconomic. Further, it enables public servants who don't like heavy rail to put up massively overpriced schemes, which then get canned...just as they wanted. Then, when someone else comes up with a similar scheme, they can smugly say to the Minister that this is similar to a previous uneconomic scheme, and here is a patronising letter to the scheme proponent. Enough of this, and the Minister comes round to the official view of rail extensions only if they are token lengths. We are not there yet. The extensions to Noarlunga Centre and Seaford have it right in my opinion. That's heavy rail doing what it should.

I agree, station placements on the Adelaide network are very close together. That's why I placed the stations as far apart as I did. Besides Flinders/Flinders University, all stations in my proposal are placed a minimum of 1200m apart - the approximate distance between Seaford and Seaford Meadows stations, and between Noarlunga and Christies Downs stations on the extensions you mention. That distance appears to be the standard for new suburban railway construction.

Flinders and Flinders University Stations are slightly closer (approximately 1000m), but this is still further apart than the average on the Adelaide network, and justifiable considering that both of these stations are at major activity centres, and because most other stations are far further apart.


The idea that infrastructure needs to be "economic" at the time it is built, is a major hold-back to the general progress and economic development of Australia. It is essentially based in the neoliberal idea that supply is only good if it satisfies existing demand. The effect of this kind of thinking is that new infrastructure is only built when the existing infrastructure is crowded, far past capacity to breaking point. It does not allow infrastructure to be built in order to better prepare for future needs.

Countries like China, which build infrastructure to promote development, rather than to compensate for it, have been able to boost growth and competitiveness, while countries with attitudes like Australia are left incurring massive costs from congestion and unrealised productivity.

Public transport is a public service. It is not generally profitable, not should it have to be. Investment in public transport should be about improving mobility across the city, with regard to promoting and facilitating the overall development of the city.

Believe me, it has very little to do with neoliberalism. Governments and departments have budgets. If some group comes up with an idea that's going to cost billions, it's been the case since long before neoliberalism, or anything else that they look long and hard at that idea. The more it costs, the less likely it is to ever happen unless there's a lot of votes in it. Further, it is very easy for unsympathetic departments to ridicule external proposals for all sorts of reasons. For example, look at the spacing of 1.2km. If a train can't get to 90kph in 600m then such a spacing is too small, and even then the average speed including stations is not impressive. Take the spacing to 2.4km, and there's a substantial increase in average speed. Public servants in departments opposed to train extensions look at each and every little thing, and use those things to kill projects.

Bottom line, if you like drawing lines on maps, go for it. If you hope that anything will actually be built, it's got to ge a really hard headed economic proposition. Like I said, the extension to Noarlunga Centre and Seaford got it right.

[Listy]

Strip footings are currently being dug in the Adelaide railway yard on the opposite side of the tracks to the existing control centre.

Is there a new facility being put in here when the old one is closed to make way for the new SAHMRI 2 building? I thought it was going further afield to Dry Creek or something...

It could be SAHMRI related. The trenches do look like footings, but so far they've been laying pipe in them and then covering them over again. The trench running along the boundary fence which connects to this construction goes at least as far as the new rail underpass & 3 more trenches with pipes were recently built heading away from the work site & toward the train lines.

[PeFe]

If we're taking future development into account, or using a rail line to promote development then a new northern line would make more sense. Either doubling the Gawler line to Dry Creek with a new line across the salt flats which would continue north serving Bolivar/Burton, Virginia, Two Wells and perhaps Mallala. Or doubling the track to Salisbury with a new branch following the ATRC freight corridor all the way to Two Wells/Mallala.

Just for reference, a line all the way to Balaclava would be shorter than the Mandurah Railway Line in Perth, admittedly the Mandurah Line already had potential commuters ready to go. But hey, getting our country towns connected to the city wouldn't be a bad thing

Seriously does Adelaide really need to sprawl to Two Wells/Virginia or into the Barossa valley?

At the moment Adelaide's population is 1.35 million.....sprawled across 80 kilomtres from Gawler to Sellick's Beach, do we really need to extend this?

The only place on planet Earth that I can see that has lower population density (or more sprawl for fewer people) is mid-West America.....is that really the example we should follow ?

[Goodsy]

If we're taking future development into account, or using a rail line to promote development then a new northern line would make more sense. Either doubling the Gawler line to Dry Creek with a new line across the salt flats which would continue north serving Bolivar/Burton, Virginia, Two Wells and perhaps Mallala. Or doubling the track to Salisbury with a new branch following the ATRC freight corridor all the way to Two Wells/Mallala.

Just for reference, a line all the way to Balaclava would be shorter than the Mandurah Railway Line in Perth, admittedly the Mandurah Line already had potential commuters ready to go. But hey, getting our country towns connected to the city wouldn't be a bad thing

Seriously does Adelaide really need to sprawl to Two Wells/Virginia or into the Barossa valley?

At the moment Adelaide's population is 1.35 million.....sprawled across 80 kilomtres from Gawler to Sellick's Beach, do we really need to extend this?

The only place on planet Earth that I can see that has lower population density (or more sprawl for fewer people) is mid-West America.....is that really the example we should follow ?

Too late, developers are already getting their hands dirty on new estates. We might as well plan for the eventual sprawl.. If you can call it that. Is it sprawl or is it country towns growing larger

[dbl96]

Believe me, it has very little to do with neoliberalism. Governments and departments have budgets. If some group comes up with an idea that's going to cost billions, it's been the case since long before neoliberalism, or anything else that they look long and hard at that idea. The more it costs, the less likely it is to ever happen unless there's a lot of votes in it. Further, it is very easy for unsympathetic departments to ridicule external proposals for all sorts of reasons. For example, look at the spacing of 1.2km. If a train can't get to 90kph in 600m then such a spacing is too small, and even then the average speed including stations is not impressive. Take the spacing to 2.4km, and there's a substantial increase in average speed. Public servants in departments opposed to train extensions look at each and every little thing, and use those things to kill projects.

Bottom line, if you like drawing lines on maps, go for it. If you hope that anything will actually be built, it's got to ge a really hard headed economic proposition. Like I said, the extension to Noarlunga Centre and Seaford got it right.

Political arguments aside, station spacing on the proposed line are actually based on, and roughly equivalent, to spacing on the extension to Noarlunga and Seaford which you have praised, despite travelling through what is on average a significantly more densely populated corridor with a greater number of significant activity centres.

The existing line between Hallett Cove and Seaford has an average station spacing of roughly 2.3km and a minimum spacing of 1.2km. Average spacing within urban areas is 1.2km (Hallett Cove-Hallett Cove Beach, Christies Beach-Noarlunga, Seaford Meadows-Seaford). The proposed line between Flinders and Noarlunga has an average station spacing of roughly 2.2km and a minimum spacing of 1.0km. Average spacing within urban areas is 1.8km (between Happy Valley and Noarlunga).

While station spacing on the two lines is in reality, roughly equivalent, the proposed line should actually be able to justify greater station density than the existing Seaford line, because of the different natures of the corridors. Much of the Hallett Cove-Seaford corridor is not urbanised - especially the long sections between Hallett Cove Beach and Christies Beach, and between Noarlunga and Seaford Meadows. That is the main reason why station density is so low on these sections. Within urbanised areas, where there is a major demand for transport services, station spacing is actually significantly closer than in urban sections of the proposed corridor. Furthermore, while the Christies Beach-Seaford corridor connects only 2 major activity centres (Noarlunga, Seaford), the proposed line from Flinders to Noarlunga connects 6 (Flinders, Flinders University, Aberfoyle Park, Reynella, Morphett Vale, Noarlunga). There would most likely be greater passenger demand for stations on the proposed line than on the existing one.

[dbl96]

If we're taking future development into account, or using a rail line to promote development then a new northern line would make more sense. Either doubling the Gawler line to Dry Creek with a new line across the salt flats which would continue north serving Bolivar/Burton, Virginia, Two Wells and perhaps Mallala. Or doubling the track to Salisbury with a new branch following the ATRC freight corridor all the way to Two Wells/Mallala.

Just for reference, a line all the way to Balaclava would be shorter than the Mandurah Railway Line in Perth, admittedly the Mandurah Line already had potential commuters ready to go. But hey, getting our country towns connected to the city wouldn't be a bad thing

I agree that future urban rail lines (both light and heavy) should be built to promote development. But they should be built to promote development within the existing urban footprint of the city. Adelaide is already extremely large geographically, and population densities are already unsustainably low. There is absolutely no need for it to spread any further.

Country South Australia should be developed, and rail services provided to facilitate this. But these connections should not be part of an urban rail/commuter strategy, which would turn places like Balaklava into dormitory suburbs of Adelaide. Places like Balaklava should be developed as self contained cities in their own rights.

There seems to be a lot of admiration on this forum for the Mandurah Railway Line in Perth. But we need to ask ourselves: is the endless, Perth-style sprawl that this kind of railway line encourages really the kind of urban future we want for our city?

Heavy rail within urban areas should be refocused around the development of high-frequency metro-style transit systems with medium-distance station spacing and frequent interchanges - the kind of transit system which encourages and supports sustainable densification of the urban area.

If the Gawler line ever reaches capacity and there is a need to build a second Northern rail line, a corridor should be chosen which serves existing urban areas. One possibility would be to use the Bridge Rd corridor and then Main North Rd to an interchange with the Gawler line at Elizabeth, before continuing along the Andrews Rd corridor through Penfield, Andrews Farm and Munno Para West before terminating at Angle Vale.

[Llessur2002]

Apparently the Federal Government announced today that they will match the State funding allocated in Labor’s last budget for stage 2 of the Gawler line electrification meaning that the line should be electrified in full by 2020.

[Waewick]

Is that a reannouncement?

Apart from some tweets, haven't seen much detail.

[Llessur2002]

Is that a reannouncement?

Apart from some tweets, haven't seen much detail.

I'm not sure to be honest - I get so confused with what has and hasn't been promised by various parties with regards to the Gawler line...

[OlympusAnt]

Common sense has prevailed finally. Running halfway on a diesel service, then changing to an electric service was stupid.

[PD2/20]

Is that a reannouncement?

Apart from some tweets, haven't seen much detail.

I'm not sure to be honest - I get so confused with what has and hasn't been promised by various parties with regards to the Gawler line...

There is a press release which refers to the the current contract with LendLease for Stage 1 (Adelaide to Salisbury) having been extended to include Stage 2 (to Gawler). There is also a reference to the federal government committing the $220m that was talked about at the May 2018 budget. Presumably the contract extension hasn't been signed without the firm commitment of the federal funding.

http://www.publicnow.com/view/90AE5951D ... 00-xxx6419