News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[Mr Messy]

I can't see the merit in spending upwards of $1 billion to reroute via Murray Bridge, as the Libs have recently proposed. Even so, it would be great if it happened, then we could use the old railway as a dedicated bikeway

Not yet while the current line still has some capacity.

A better option would be to re-duplicate the Belair line

Not to enter the debate, but if the Libs get in, and they keep their promise, there's a couple of years arguing for funding. Then comes; environmental approvals, surveys, land purchases, geological investigations, concept and detailed design. Five years? More like ten, realistically. Then, there's probably five years to build it.

So, any capacity excess on the present Hills Line needs to serve for fifteen years. Is the excess that much?

If not, then the Liberal proposal has a lot of merit.

In any case, it would be much cheaper to do the planning, environmental approvals, surveying, final route selection and property purchase now (with rentals back to landowners in the meantime), so it's ready to go. Shovel ready.

In fact, it would be smart to have several big projects "shovel ready". If there's a big economic slump, having projects all ready to go avoids pink batts.

I think it would be worth planning the route and possibly some land acquisition

[rhino]

When the idea of a rail freight route around the hills was first mooted about five years ago, ARTC looked into the capacity of the current alignment and came to the conclusion that, with a few relatively minor works (as compared to the cost of building the new route), the current alignment would cope for the next 25 to 30 years. The new crossing loop at Ambleside that was built about 4 years ago has already increased the capacity of the line. Considering the current railway land is already owned, I suspect that double-tracking the existing freight route would still be cheaper than creating a new one. This would allow the route to cope for many more decades, and who knows what technology will have in store for us then?

[SBD]

When the idea of a rail freight route around the hills was first mooted about five years ago, ARTC looked into the capacity of the current alignment and came to the conclusion that, with a few relatively minor works (as compared to the cost of building the new route), the current alignment would cope for the next 25 to 30 years. The new crossing loop at Ambleside that was built about 4 years ago has already increased the capacity of the line. Considering the current railway land is already owned, I suspect that double-tracking the existing freight route would still be cheaper than creating a new one. This would allow the route to cope for many more decades, and who knows what technology will have in store for us then?

Do the requirements to not double-stack containers and to use additional locomotives due to the gradients involved get counted as part of "capacity"? They constrain the operations on the route, including at the termini.

Double-stacking containers is often seen as an issue that could be solved by digging the tunnel and bridge floors a bit deeper. I imagine that is part of the issue, but is the load on the coupler immediately behind the locomotive going uphill also a consideration? Doubling the weight of the train has to have engineering implications as well as physical space.

[Patrick_27]

When the idea of a rail freight route around the hills was first mooted about five years ago, ARTC looked into the capacity of the current alignment and came to the conclusion that, with a few relatively minor works (as compared to the cost of building the new route), the current alignment would cope for the next 25 to 30 years. The new crossing loop at Ambleside that was built about 4 years ago has already increased the capacity of the line. Considering the current railway land is already owned, I suspect that double-tracking the existing freight route would still be cheaper than creating a new one. This would allow the route to cope for many more decades, and who knows what technology will have in store for us then?

Do the requirements to not double-stack containers and to use additional locomotives due to the gradients involved get counted as part of "capacity"? They constrain the operations on the route, including at the termini.

Double-stacking containers is often seen as an issue that could be solved by digging the tunnel and bridge floors a bit deeper. I imagine that is part of the issue, but is the load on the coupler immediately behind the locomotive going uphill also a consideration? Doubling the weight of the train has to have engineering implications as well as physical space.

The sad reality is that the Belair Line will never benefit from further investment along this corridor. As far as the Feds are concerned, freight along this route takes priority over metro trains. Now if this were Victoria or NSW, I'm sure you'd find the Feds cheque book would be a lot easier to get our hands on but unfortunately we're just little old Adelaide where every fix can simply be a half-fix.

[rhino]

Double-stacking containers is often seen as an issue that could be solved by digging the tunnel and bridge floors a bit deeper. I imagine that is part of the issue, but is the load on the coupler immediately behind the locomotive going uphill also a consideration? Doubling the weight of the train has to have engineering implications as well as physical space.

Double-stacking does not double the weight of the train. I'm pretty certain that in most cases the weight of the wagon is greater than the weight of a loaded container. Adding another container to a wagon is not going to double the total weight on the rails of that wagon. Anyway, locos are rated as to what total weight they can pull along a specific route, depending on the weight (influencing traction) of the loco and the steepness of the route.

Also don't forget that it's not just the tunnels in the Adelaide Hills that is stopping double stacking on this route. There are some low bridges in Melbourne and one or two in rural Victoria that are also in the way.

[Raider]

Maybe there could be a way to get the freight line to run parallel with Brown Hill Creek from Mitcham station to Mount Lofty station. 3 or 4 tunnels may be required to do so, so maybe the Premier could talk to Elon Musk about getting the Boring Company involved. A new passenger line could be run with this which would drastically cut the travel times up to the hills and make a Mount Barker line a viable (in terms of travel time) transport alternative. I guess it would cost a few billion dollars though.

[Joelmark]

New Croydon station nearing completion (City-bound).

IMG_2079.JPG (756.35 KiB) Viewed 3026 times

[Llessur2002]

A couple more of Croydon Station - the city bound shelter from a different angle and the permanent tactile paving going down.

[Mpol03]

I don’t have pics but they are also refurbishing all Grange line stations. Grange is complete as is Albert Park. Seaton is being worked on, and not quite sure on the status is East Grange.

[Joelmark]

I don’t have pics but they are also refurbishing all Grange line stations. Grange is complete as is Albert Park. Seaton is being worked on, and not quite sure on the status is East Grange.

East Grange is currently receiving a new shelter similar to the others on the Grange line, should be finished within a few weeks by the look of it.

[Mpol03]

Would this kind in investment in the line suggest they don’t plan to close it? Would new shelters of this nature prevent it from becoming light rail?

[Norman]

The new shelters are very modular and cheap. They can easily be packed up and moved to another station on the network.

[Verbatim9]

---Delete---

[Llessur2002]

Can't get around the paywall any more and I'll be buggered if I'm putting any money in Murdoch's pocket...

[Norman]

Actually, they are rebuilding the Clovelly Park station a few metres south, and renaming it Tonsley. This paper has no idea.