COM: Seaford Rail Extension | $291m | 5.5km

[Xaragmata]

Completed Goldsmith Drive bridge ... (excavating for track beneath is still to be done)

[ChillyPhilly]

Slowly getting there, although according to Nearmap not that much has been happening.

[Norman]

Slowly getting there, although according to Nearmap not that much has been happening.

Construction hasn't started yet, it will in a few weeks or so.

[crawf]

New video of the Seaford Rail Extension has been released showing far more detail compared to the previous video, including the planned stations and railyards.

[fabricator]

3rd March nearmap photos
site of future Seaford Medows station, carpark and railcar depot.
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-35.176202,1 ... d=20110303

The troublesome cutting where they keep finding bones.
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-35.152039,1 ... d=20110303

[jewelryab]

Sinking the rail line would be the wrong approach, in my opinion.

But let's face it, we really haven't really got a clue as to what the Government's planning here. The artwork is likely just that.

[Tonsley213]

Sinking the rail line would be the wrong approach, in my opinion.

But let's face it, we really haven't really got a clue as to what the Government's planning here. The artwork is likely just that.

well what would you do. Trains can't go up steep gradients.

[The Scooter Guy]

Sinking the rail line would be the wrong approach, in my opinion.

But let's face it, we really haven't really got a clue as to what the Government's planning here. The artwork is likely just that.

well what would you do. Trains can't go up steep gradients.

Well, they can if they're on a 'rack & pinion' railway!

[Tonsley213]

Sinking the rail line would be the wrong approach, in my opinion.

But let's face it, we really haven't really got a clue as to what the Government's planning here. The artwork is likely just that.

well what would you do. Trains can't go up steep gradients.

Well, they can if they're on a 'rack & pinion' railway!

you're kidding, right

[metro]

lol Seaford isnt exactly the swiss alps

welcome to seaford:

[Aidan]

Sinking the rail line would be the wrong approach, in my opinion.

But let's face it, we really haven't really got a clue as to what the Government's planning here. The artwork is likely just that.

well what would you do. Trains can't go up steep gradients.

Electrified passenger railways can fairly easily manage gradients twice as steep as what's planned for the Seaford extension. The extension is needlessly expensive mainly because it's designed to the wrong standards.

However even with steep gradients the railway needs to be grade separated, so sinking it is necessary in some places. And just north of River Road the terrain is very steep, and failure to put the line into cutting around there would require that end of the bridge to be higher which would increase its cost.

[fishinajar]

Sinking the rail line would be the wrong approach, in my opinion.

But let's face it, we really haven't really got a clue as to what the Government's planning here. The artwork is likely just that.

well what would you do. Trains can't go up steep gradients.

Electrified passenger railways can fairly easily manage gradients twice as steep as what's planned for the Seaford extension. The extension is needlessly expensive mainly because it's designed to the wrong standards.

However even with steep gradients the railway needs to be grade separated, so sinking it is necessary in some places. And just north of River Road the terrain is very steep, and failure to put the line into cutting around there would require that end of the bridge to be higher which would increase its cost.

I can't believe even on S-A this occurs. If they didn't do a cutting they would be bagged for cutting costs and increasing travel times and running/wear costs. Spending the money now before the lines active, to build it well and provide permanent benefits for the future; and they get criticised. I do not envy our politicians and planners their jobs.

[Aidan]

Electrified passenger railways can fairly easily manage gradients twice as steep as what's planned for the Seaford extension. The extension is needlessly expensive mainly because it's designed to the wrong standards.

However even with steep gradients the railway needs to be grade separated, so sinking it is necessary in some places. And just north of River Road the terrain is very steep, and failure to put the line into cutting around there would require that end of the bridge to be higher which would increase its cost.

I can't believe even on S-A this occurs. If they didn't do a cutting they would be bagged for cutting costs and increasing travel times and running/wear costs. Spending the money now before the lines active, to build it well and provide permanent benefits for the future; and they get criticised. I do not envy our politicians and planners their jobs.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do a cutting, or that they shouldn't build it well. But building a suburban passenger railway well is very different from building a freight railway well. Gradients can be much steeper, and without the need to accommodate double stacked containers, cuttings don't have to be so deep. Yet the DTEI originally planned the line to freight specifications.

There was a big wasted opportunity with the Seaford extension - the railway could have been built on an alternative alignment further west, with a shorter bridge (saving construction costs) and the Seaford Meadows station located on high ground (saving energy). This location was fairly central to the Seaford Meadows development, meaning almost the entire suburb would've been within easy walking distance of the station (the exception being within walking distance of the bus service on Commercial Road). Seaford Meadows would have become a TOD in the true sense of the term (the railway being anyone's first choice to get anywhere) even without the high density that most people wrongly regard as the defining feature of TODs. And with the need for another bus route eliminated (because the station would be sufficient) total running/ware costs would've also been lower.

But the plan they went with does not have most of Seaford Meadows within easy walking distance of the station. And as there are no direct roads to the area, it looked to be at very high risk of turning into a ghetto. Fortunately the developers solved that problem by putting a retirement village at the northern end - which I thought was very clever, though still an inferior solution.

[mattblack]

very high risk of turning into a ghetto.

Sometimes this site is just awsome.

You want to see ghetto?, go to the US. You want to see slums?, go to India. SA does not or will it ever have these terms in its vocab. This only happends when communities are completely isolated from work, ammenities and transport. Seaford is not one of these places.

[Aidan]

very high risk of turning into a ghetto.

Sometimes this site is just awsome.

You want to see ghetto?, go to the US.

No, the point is that's what I don't want to see!

You want to see slums?, go to India.

Why not the US? I don't know why you brought slums into the discussion, but do you really think American slums cease to be slums just because there's something worse in the world?

SA does not or will it ever have these terms in its vocab. This only happends when communities are completely isolated from work, ammenities and transport. Seaford is not one of these places.

Slums are not caused by isolation at all. They're usually caused by rent controls, though they can be caused by large numbers of people unable to afford anything better (as is the case in India).

With ghettos you're on the right track, but the problem isn't complete isolation, it's relative isolation. The lack of direct roads to Seaford Meadows means it will take longer to get to than the surrounding suburbs. With a good rail service that would not matter, but the station they're going to construct is only on the edge of the development. Fortunately they came up with the retirement village solution - but had they not done so, I think it's more likely than not that Seaford Meadows would in due course have become a rather less desirable suburb than Davoren Park.