Sensational-Adelaide.com

Forget any lines that travel through the Adelaide Hills, they'll never be viable. Focus should be moved to the Adelaide Plains.

Build a new northern line branching off at Islington following the Northern Connector to the ARTC corridor



Stations at

Islington
Cormack Road
Salt Pans
Bolivar
Virginia
Two Wells
Mallala

A train service to Mount Barker would be good. It could mean less buses are required, freeing up buses that could be used elsewhere in the hills i.e. the 834, 837.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:58 am

Ballarat is more self-sufficient than Murray Bridge is. But, it does have roughly three times the population. Melton is probably more of a commuter town to Melbourne than Ballarat.

One only needs to look at the key reasons Monarto failed: it was too far from Adelaide to viably interact with the city, yet too close to become its own self-sufficient location.

Monarto failed, because just as it was to get off the ground, population growth, which had been phenomenal in the post war years, suddenly ground to a halt in the 70's, the oil crises hit, fuel skyrocketed, and a far flung satellite city was not deemed attractive under such circumstances. A change of federal government to the Fraser government, which withdrew all funding for the project put the nail in the coffin. Had Monarto succeeded, Mount Barker would have been rightly left as a sleepy hills township, a 24 hour airport would be operating nearby, and the rail would have been upgraded long ago. Murray Bridge would have also grown, and the urban sprawl into areas like Southern Vales and prime market garden areas of Virginia would be left alone. That being said, even if Mount Barker/Murray Bridge, managed to attract more industry, and less workers were required to commute, at current growth of freight alone, the SE Freeway will be a nightmare in 20 years. Some sort of rail upgrade is inevitable if current trends both in population and freight continue.

The simple fact is that trains work good when they're on the flats and not so when there's even a small hill.

You'll never get trains through the Adelaide Hills any faster than they currently are without some tunnel or major earthworks. We just don't have the money or necessity to do such a thing.

Anybody travelled to Covelly Park since the Tonsley closure?
Digital copies of the timetable have also been updated to remove Tonsley station (no mention of Flinders station), but the schedule and line name haven't changed.

claybro wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:17 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:58 am

Ballarat is more self-sufficient than Murray Bridge is. But, it does have roughly three times the population. Melton is probably more of a commuter town to Melbourne than Ballarat.

One only needs to look at the key reasons Monarto failed: it was too far from Adelaide to viably interact with the city, yet too close to become its own self-sufficient location.

Monarto failed, because just as it was to get off the ground, population growth, which had been phenomenal in the post war years, suddenly ground to a halt in the 70's, the oil crises hit, fuel skyrocketed, and a far flung satellite city was not deemed attractive under such circumstances. A change of federal government to the Fraser government, which withdrew all funding for the project put the nail in the coffin. Had Monarto succeeded, Mount Barker would have been rightly left as a sleepy hills township, a 24 hour airport would be operating nearby, and the rail would have been upgraded long ago. Murray Bridge would have also grown, and the urban sprawl into areas like Southern Vales and prime market garden areas of Virginia would be left alone. That being said, even if Mount Barker/Murray Bridge, managed to attract more industry, and less workers were required to commute, at current growth of freight alone, the SE Freeway will be a nightmare in 20 years. Some sort of rail upgrade is inevitable if current trends both in population and freight continue.

Was Monarto only ever proposed as a satellite/dormitory "city" or did it have its own industrial base? I have no recollection of any significant industry there in the 1970s, or even an outpost of whatever ServiceSA was called at the time. Did it ever get any further than the Government buying a few farms or cancelling pastoral leases if it was never even farmed? Comparing back to Elizabeth 20 years earlier, that had a (small) shopping mall and some employers before many people moved in as far as I know.

SBD wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:39 pm

claybro wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:17 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:58 am

Ballarat is more self-sufficient than Murray Bridge is. But, it does have roughly three times the population. Melton is probably more of a commuter town to Melbourne than Ballarat.

One only needs to look at the key reasons Monarto failed: it was too far from Adelaide to viably interact with the city, yet too close to become its own self-sufficient location.

Monarto failed, because just as it was to get off the ground, population growth, which had been phenomenal in the post war years, suddenly ground to a halt in the 70's, the oil crises hit, fuel skyrocketed, and a far flung satellite city was not deemed attractive under such circumstances. A change of federal government to the Fraser government, which withdrew all funding for the project put the nail in the coffin. Had Monarto succeeded, Mount Barker would have been rightly left as a sleepy hills township, a 24 hour airport would be operating nearby, and the rail would have been upgraded long ago. Murray Bridge would have also grown, and the urban sprawl into areas like Southern Vales and prime market garden areas of Virginia would be left alone. That being said, even if Mount Barker/Murray Bridge, managed to attract more industry, and less workers were required to commute, at current growth of freight alone, the SE Freeway will be a nightmare in 20 years. Some sort of rail upgrade is inevitable if current trends both in population and freight continue.

Was Monarto only ever proposed as a satellite/dormitory "city" or did it have its own industrial base? I have no recollection of any significant industry there in the 1970s, or even an outpost of whatever ServiceSA was called at the time. Did it ever get any further than the Government buying a few farms or cancelling pastoral leases if it was never even farmed? Comparing back to Elizabeth 20 years earlier, that had a (small) shopping mall and some employers before many people moved in as far as I know.

The plan was to send white collar public servants there. If you want to imagine the response, have a look at what happened a year or so back when the state government tried sending them to a new building in Port Adelaide. Imagine the same, but sending 20 times more of them to a city that is 10 times further away and where nothing is actually built.

Algernon wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:36 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:39 pm

claybro wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:17 pm

Monarto failed, because just as it was to get off the ground, population growth, which had been phenomenal in the post war years, suddenly ground to a halt in the 70's, the oil crises hit, fuel skyrocketed, and a far flung satellite city was not deemed attractive under such circumstances. A change of federal government to the Fraser government, which withdrew all funding for the project put the nail in the coffin. Had Monarto succeeded, Mount Barker would have been rightly left as a sleepy hills township, a 24 hour airport would be operating nearby, and the rail would have been upgraded long ago. Murray Bridge would have also grown, and the urban sprawl into areas like Southern Vales and prime market garden areas of Virginia would be left alone. That being said, even if Mount Barker/Murray Bridge, managed to attract more industry, and less workers were required to commute, at current growth of freight alone, the SE Freeway will be a nightmare in 20 years. Some sort of rail upgrade is inevitable if current trends both in population and freight continue.

Was Monarto only ever proposed as a satellite/dormitory "city" or did it have its own industrial base? I have no recollection of any significant industry there in the 1970s, or even an outpost of whatever ServiceSA was called at the time. Did it ever get any further than the Government buying a few farms or cancelling pastoral leases if it was never even farmed? Comparing back to Elizabeth 20 years earlier, that had a (small) shopping mall and some employers before many people moved in as far as I know.

The plan was to send white collar public servants there. If you want to imagine the response, have a look at what happened a year or so back when the state government tried sending them to a new building in Port Adelaide. Imagine the same, but sending 20 times more of them to a city that is 10 times further away and where nothing is actually built.

I guess Elizabeth was populated early by migrants and people who were used to being moved around, not by people who were already settled only a hundred km away. Only twenty years after a successful comparable venture, perhaps nobody had looked at why the first one worked to make sure the second one followed.

Waewick wrote

Unless we get China money there will never be a decent train system in Adelaide.

Its too easy to kill on economics.

Like the tram system, the train system doesn't service the densely populated parts of Adelaide so it'll never get the patronage.

Adelaide will never get a decent train system until it loses its "small town" suburban parochial attitude.......

Adelaide, as a city and the people who live in it, need to believe they live in a "city".......not a big country town where you drive down the main street and park your car outside the shops (absolutely everywhere you go)

The car is GOD in Adelaide.......

Adelaide will never get a decent train system until the NIMBY's who believe that any building over 2 storys is "high rise" and all apartment blocks are "potential future slums" are dead and buried in their graves.....

Adelaide has a chance to improve its current train system by smart development around the current stations, tod's, re-designed major stations etc... the same old stuff that people have been banging on about for the last 20 years....

Algernon wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:36 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:39 pm

claybro wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:17 pm

Monarto failed, because just as it was to get off the ground, population growth, which had been phenomenal in the post war years, suddenly ground to a halt in the 70's, the oil crises hit, fuel skyrocketed, and a far flung satellite city was not deemed attractive under such circumstances. A change of federal government to the Fraser government, which withdrew all funding for the project put the nail in the coffin. Had Monarto succeeded, Mount Barker would have been rightly left as a sleepy hills township, a 24 hour airport would be operating nearby, and the rail would have been upgraded long ago. Murray Bridge would have also grown, and the urban sprawl into areas like Southern Vales and prime market garden areas of Virginia would be left alone. That being said, even if Mount Barker/Murray Bridge, managed to attract more industry, and less workers were required to commute, at current growth of freight alone, the SE Freeway will be a nightmare in 20 years. Some sort of rail upgrade is inevitable if current trends both in population and freight continue.

Was Monarto only ever proposed as a satellite/dormitory "city" or did it have its own industrial base? I have no recollection of any significant industry there in the 1970s, or even an outpost of whatever ServiceSA was called at the time. Did it ever get any further than the Government buying a few farms or cancelling pastoral leases if it was never even farmed? Comparing back to Elizabeth 20 years earlier, that had a (small) shopping mall and some employers before many people moved in as far as I know.

The plan was to send white collar public servants there. If you want to imagine the response, have a look at what happened a year or so back when the state government tried sending them to a new building in Port Adelaide. Imagine the same, but sending 20 times more of them to a city that is 10 times further away and where nothing is actually built.

I suppose if something like Monarto had gone ahead in the 50's or 60's, the idea might have been popular for a while - the New Town movement was in full swing & a house in outer suburbia or a satellite city was a desirable aspiration for many middle class families all around the world. Property developers very expertly sold people the idea of the freedom & space that came with owning a big block of land away from the city, & also exploited the fear of inner city crime & the atom bomb when they marketed cheap land on city fringes, all connected by conveniently located taxpayer funded motorways & freeways*.
*Now it's the inner city land that's desirable again & the taxpayer is funding the mass transit to connect it all up. (definitely not saying mass transit is a bad thing, just an observation)

PeFe wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:43 am

Waewick wrote

Unless we get China money there will never be a decent train system in Adelaide.

Its too easy to kill on economics.

Like the tram system, the train system doesn't service the densely populated parts of Adelaide so it'll never get the patronage.

Adelaide will never get a decent train system until it loses its "small town" suburban parochial attitude.......

Adelaide, as a city and the people who live in it, need to believe they live in a "city".......not a big country town where you drive down the main street and park your car outside the shops (absolutely everywhere you go)

The car is GOD in Adelaide.......

Adelaide will never get a decent train system until the NIMBY's who believe that any building over 2 storys is "high rise" and all apartment blocks are "potential future slums" are dead and buried in their graves.....

Adelaide has a chance to improve its current train system by smart development around the current stations, tod's, re-designed major stations etc... the same old stuff that people have been banging on about for the last 20 years....

Not just the NIMBYS, but the various levels of government and their planning approvals leave a lot to be desired. Close to $1Billon has been spent on the Marion precinct in the last 20 odd years, with the shopping centre, civic centre, swimming centre, and the Oaklands train statin ( twice). Despite this, we still have a train station, isolated from the main area of activity. Until various levels of government and their various departments get their heads around this, we will never get the most from the very expensive infrastructure already in place. The money is there, the population is there (or nearby), just the planning is lazy or barely existent.

claybro wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:21 pm

PeFe wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:43 am

Waewick wrote

Unless we get China money there will never be a decent train system in Adelaide.

Its too easy to kill on economics.

Like the tram system, the train system doesn't service the densely populated parts of Adelaide so it'll never get the patronage.

Adelaide will never get a decent train system until it loses its "small town" suburban parochial attitude.......

Adelaide, as a city and the people who live in it, need to believe they live in a "city".......not a big country town where you drive down the main street and park your car outside the shops (absolutely everywhere you go)

The car is GOD in Adelaide.......

Adelaide will never get a decent train system until the NIMBY's who believe that any building over 2 storys is "high rise" and all apartment blocks are "potential future slums" are dead and buried in their graves.....

Adelaide has a chance to improve its current train system by smart development around the current stations, tod's, re-designed major stations etc... the same old stuff that people have been banging on about for the last 20 years....

Not just the NIMBYS, but the various levels of government and their planning approvals leave a lot to be desired. Close to $1Billon has been spent on the Marion precinct in the last 20 odd years, with the shopping centre, civic centre, swimming centre, and the Oaklands train statin ( twice). Despite this, we still have a train station, isolated from the main area of activity. Until various levels of government and their various departments get their heads around this, we will never get the most from the very expensive infrastructure already in place. The money is there, the population is there (or nearby), just the planning is lazy or barely existent.

It's because the state Liberals have used the State Bank collapse (almost 30 years ago) to bring about fear in SA voters over our state debt, despite there being a very big difference between good vs. bad debt. Hell, isn't Lucas himself raising the the sate's debt ceiling despite spending how many years in opposition harping on about Labor's debt? At-least Labor had things to show for their spending; some things great, and some things not (usually projects done on impulse without a proper plan). The problem that South Australia faces, is that even with a typical rotation of governments; Liberals raising the money through taxation, privatisation and cuts to services and Labor spending it; Labor have spend 16 years in government arguing with far too many sceptical SA voters on every little bit of public investment that they went about. A normal amount of argy-bargy on things that matter, like the preservation of Thebarton Theatre for instance, is healthy and justified (anywhere in the world); but when Labor were in government every little thing, there was always a fucking focus group with the aim of bringing public spending down and the Liberals were usually the one's stirring the pot.

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:20 pm

It's because the state Liberals have used the State Bank collapse (almost 30 years ago) to bring about fear in SA voters over our state debt, despite there being a very big difference between good vs. bad debt. Hell, isn't Lucas himself raising the the sate's debt ceiling despite spending how many years in opposition harping on about Labor's debt? At-least Labor had things to show for their spending; some things great, and some things not (usually projects done on impulse without a proper plan). The problem that South Australia faces, is that even with a typical rotation of governments; Liberals raising the money through taxation, privatisation and cuts to services and Labor spending it; Labor have spend 16 years in government arguing with far too many sceptical SA voters on every little bit of public investment that they went about. A normal amount of argy-bargy on things that matter, like the preservation of Thebarton Theatre for instance, is healthy and justified (anywhere in the world); but when Labor were in government every little thing, there was always a fucking focus group with the aim of bringing public spending down and the Liberals were usually the one's stirring the pot.

So in the last 50 years, Labor have been in power for around 40 of those years. Most elections won by comfortable margins, and by popular legendary leaders of the state... and you are blaming the lack of planning integration with the existing rail system on the Liberals and action groups??

Sitting in car 3121 and the window at the front of the car has been frosted over, you can no longer see out the front. I’m presuming it was done when the new interior signage was added?

Also another thought since I’m rarely on 3000s, but when the cars were repowered, it might’ve been a good idea to remove the 3-set chairs and just have 2-2 for wider gangways. Slicing off the third chair doesn’t look like it’ll tamper with the structure of the remaining seats.

claybro wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:50 pm

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:20 pm

It's because the state Liberals have used the State Bank collapse (almost 30 years ago) to bring about fear in SA voters over our state debt, despite there being a very big difference between good vs. bad debt. Hell, isn't Lucas himself raising the the sate's debt ceiling despite spending how many years in opposition harping on about Labor's debt? At-least Labor had things to show for their spending; some things great, and some things not (usually projects done on impulse without a proper plan). The problem that South Australia faces, is that even with a typical rotation of governments; Liberals raising the money through taxation, privatisation and cuts to services and Labor spending it; Labor have spend 16 years in government arguing with far too many sceptical SA voters on every little bit of public investment that they went about. A normal amount of argy-bargy on things that matter, like the preservation of Thebarton Theatre for instance, is healthy and justified (anywhere in the world); but when Labor were in government every little thing, there was always a fucking focus group with the aim of bringing public spending down and the Liberals were usually the one's stirring the pot.

So in the last 50 years, Labor have been in power for around 40 of those years. Most elections won by comfortable margins, and by popular legendary leaders of the state... and you are blaming the lack of planning integration with the existing rail system on the Liberals and action groups??

Yes, I believe I am. A lot of the issues our state face with rail infrastructure stem beyond 50 years; 50 years is just a number that you've pulled out of the hat to align with your argument. Playford's government can be blamed for a lot of issues that our state face today, whether it be poor planning, sub-par infrastructure, and now dwindling industry to support the demand etc. That's not to say Labor aren't without their faults, for instance, why wasn't our metropolitan railways electrified under Dunstan or Bannon when the state actually had money to spend on it? Perhaps then we might still have a more extensive network than we have today and a better handle on Adelaide's urban sprawl. Every government has had its faults, but the Libs have a track record of coming into government for a short stint and completely butchering a system that works well enough but obviously could be better, rather than saying: "This isn't working, how can the money we invest improve this ailing system?" The tram extension down North Terrace might have been a total mess and financial blunder, some could say the same about the Entertainment Centre extension. Gawler electrification might only be happening now after a decade since it was first announced. But you know what? At-least Labor tried. The first bit of news the Libs have for us about Adelaide's metro rail network is their intentions to privatise the operations side of it... How does that benefit anyone or anything other than save the government the hassle and a petty change on their balance sheet...