Sensational-Adelaide.com

Norman wrote:Err, that would be a TRAIN trip to Adelaide. The only bus service serving Outer Harbour is the 330 North Haven Loop.

Err, I don't think that cruise passengers catch the train the go by private charter coaches

how would a tram trip from glenelg be more enjoyable than a train from outer harbour?

Cruise wrote:how would a tram trip from glenelg be more enjoyable than a train from outer harbour?

To start there is no comparison of outer harbour and Glenelg. Glenelg it’s self is a pleasant hospitable place to disembark with its 7 day a week shopping, restaurants, bars, hotels, and coffee shops. Then the tram trip to Adelaide travels through mainly leafy suburbs, with busy stations. The tram also gives the option of getting off any ware from South Tce to North terrace, the Central markets, Victoria Square, and the Mall. This Sort of orientates the visitor to the city and its activities.

What about a train to Port Adelaide/Semaphore? then go on to the city?

Ok, Port Adelaide might not be much now, but give it time. Semaphore is already a nice spot as it is.

Cruise wrote:What about a train to Port Adelaide/Semaphore? then go on to the city?

Ok, Port Adelaide might not be much now, but give it time. Semaphore is already a nice spot as it is.

So basically reinstate the Semaphore railway line then? like they had in 1978? history is re-repeating

Jim wrote:I have been talking to someone with far more nautical experience than me and apparently many of the resort ports on the southern European coast can no longer handle the new mega cruise liners and it is now quite common for liners to anchor off shore and for small cruise tenders are used to bring passenger to shore. Most people find this a very enjoyable part of the tourist experience. As a tourist if I had a choice of a bus trip from Outer harbour to Adelaide or a tender to Glenelg and a tram to the city I think this would be the tender and tram. So may be all is not lost the concept may still have some legs. Offcourse in heavy seas or refuelling the ships can still go in to Outer harbour.

Most of those ports you mention have issues: some have no docking facilities at all or don't have suitable ones for Panamax-sized cruise ships (forget Post-Panamax). Others have overcrowding issues (ships and tourists). Also in the Mediterranean there are many ports of call at short distances. Cruise lines visiting Australia (and in particular southern Australia where the distances between ports is bigger) prefer to have their cruise ships dock. Refuelling, restocking (fresh food, water, etc.), removal of garbage, etc., is better done from a wharf than out at sea. Cruise lines also prefer to see their guests go directly from the pier to their tour coaches (cruise lines profit from this as well) rather than the labourious task of tendering them ashore or even possibly missing the port of call because of bad weather.

The train trip between Outer Harbor and Adelaide wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the state of the carriages and the frequency. Look at it positively, how many ports have a train station 200-300 metres away?! The area around the Overseas Passenger Terminal at Outer Harbor has a lot of potential. It's up to Flinders Ports and the State Government to make it happen.

Cheers

I read somewhere recently that some mid-sized cruise ships will be docking at Glenelg instead of outer harbour. Did anyone else spot that article? i can't recall the details.

Wayno wrote:I read somewhere recently that some mid-sized cruise ships will be docking at Glenelg instead of outer harbour. Did anyone else spot that article? i can't recall the details.

Interesting? Not sure where this piece of news came from as I don't get to read the paper (The Advertiser) that much, but if it were true, cruise ships would not be able to physically dock anywhere at Glenelg. They would only be able to anchor out in the bay and somewhere where they wouldn't damage the seabed too much. Mid-sized cruise ships have draughts of 6 to 8 metres, but they would still be 500 to 1000 metres offshore depending where they were allowed to anchor. Some cruise ships (and maybe some of the smaller ones too) could use their GPS and thrusters to stay in one position without anchoring. Weather conditions would have to be good though (in summer the sea is usually quite flat) for both stationary positioning and tendering pax to shore. Anchoring at Glenelg would save the cruise lines port fees (at Outer Harbour), but they'd miss out on stocking up on water, fresh fruit/vegetables/meats, etc., and possibly fuel (if required). Doing this with a barge could be awkward since it would have to come from Port Adelaide anyway, unless of course it came from Port Stanvac, then it could be possible. There are pros and cons to the whole thing, but I would be interested to know what was said.

Cheers

I have added several posts to a parallel thread VIS: Glenelg ferry terminal that may interest those reading this one. A cruise terminal would be much larger than what is envisaged in the Makris proposal of a Monaco-styled marina and ferry terminal. The ferry terminal I assume would be for a vessel between 50 and 100 metres LOA, with a shallow draught of no more than 3 metres. Possibly an all-seater twin hulled vessel. In the ncruise terminal vision cruise vessels could be as large as ALLURE of the SEAS or QM2 which are Post-Panamaxes, but these are exceptions as most cruise ships that ply Aussie waters are still of Panamax size (with a maximum breadth of 32.2 metres) and anything up to 294 metres LOA.

Cheers

I've been thinking about this too for a while. You obviously know a lot more about the subject than I do - I haven't really gone past "wouldn't it be cool if..."

So, wouldn't it be cool if... the Glenelg Jetty was widened and lengthened out, and a second pier was built from the end of Anzac Hwy. At the end of the jetties would be a north-south running pier on which the terminal, customs and other facilities can be built. The Moseley Square jetty can carry pedestrians and the tram line out to the terminal, so Special trams can take travellers directly from their ship to the city. The Anzac Hwy jetty would be for supply and service vehicles and coaches (would a full height truck or coach fit under the pedestrian bridge at the Pier Hotel?). The EIS will be pure imagination and if you close your eyes and tap your ruby shoes you might even see ROI.

What sort of on shore facilities would be required?

That's a pretty good idea actually. And, it could double up as a shark prevention enclosure for that popular stretch of Glenelg beach.

Everybody wins.

AtD wrote:I've been thinking about this too for a while. You obviously know a lot more about the subject than I do - I haven't really gone past "wouldn't it be cool if..."

So, wouldn't it be cool if... the Glenelg Jetty was widened and lengthened out, and a second pier was built from the end of Anzac Hwy. At the end of the jetties would be a north-south running pier on which the terminal, customs and other facilities can be built. The Moseley Square jetty can carry pedestrians and the tram line out to the terminal, so Special trams can take travellers directly from their ship to the city. The Anzac Hwy jetty would be for supply and service vehicles and coaches (would a full height truck or coach fit under the pedestrian bridge at the Pier Hotel?). The EIS will be pure imagination and if you close your eyes and tap your ruby shoes you might even see ROI.

What sort of on shore facilities would be required?

If you have a map or an aerial of Glenelg from the jetty to the current marina, you could come up with all sorts of scenarios for a harbour. If I was dreaming I would hope to always include an EIS as it would impact any serious proposal. Environment and people are too important. An EIS would definitely constrain our design of a breakwater, jetty or marina. We would have to do it right to avoid costly issues at such a high profile place.

Anyway, look, it probably can be done within certain environmental parameters, but I think the Glenelg jetty won't be part of the final equation, even if you included the tram right up to the terminal like you’ve envisaged. It sounds good, but it would be cheaper and more practical to have shuttle buses take the pax to Moseley Square rather than spend money on a tram line you’d use sparingly (that would also be affected by sea spray).

As for the jetty, when widening and lengthening it, do you mean turning it into a breakwater or leaving it as is on stilts so water can pass through? The same with the ANZAC Highway jetty and north-south wharf section. This would make a huge difference to the beach frontage and the amount of sand south and north of the Glenelg jetty up to the current breakwater at the marina.

Not sure whether tour buses or trucks can fit under the footbridge you mentioned at the Pier Hotel. I’d guess a fire-engine would be able to, it would be foolish if it didn’t. It may be limited to that. Vehicle access to your vision, the Ferry Terminal envisaged in the Makris Monaco-style marina and what I am proposing here below will be a big issue too.

My proposal is not too different from what you’ve already seen in the mock up for the ferry terminal (Monaco-styled marina). Basically it will be a very long pier pointing in a west-north-west direction. It will be solid (not on stilts), so it will be a breakwater with rocks on the seaward side and a wharf on the coast side. The ferry terminal would be at the southern end towards the entrance to the current marina. Facilities would include an access road for service vehicles, a parking area for buses, limos and taxis and a covered terminal building similar to the one at Outer Harbour, but on a smaller scale. The other option would be for the pier to be constructed on the northern side (Glenelg North) of the current marina and with all vehicular access to come from there. The difference would be that the pier envisaged in my first proposal would only be a breakwater or part of the Monaco-styled marina with pontoons. This configuration would probably turn out to be more costly as you would require the construction of two separate piers (one a breakwater) jutting out to sea.

Whatever proposal that envisages a cruise ship to dock at Glenelg, requires a lot of dredging, and that’s a big issue too.

Cheers

PS. If I had somewhere to post I could do a mock up to give you an idea of what the whole thing would look like.

King wrote:That's a pretty good idea actually. And, it could double up as a shark prevention enclosure for that popular stretch of Glenelg beach.

Everybody wins.

True, but they could do this even without AtD's idea. They obviously found it to be uneccessary, impractical (for boating) or too costly to maintain. The council would have the answers to this.

Cheers

Maybe we can take a step back and ask how we expect the appeal of the Glenelg beach and foreshore to be maintained if we have big ferries and ships rocking up, not to mention with all manner of cars, buses and trucks trying to access them?

Splashmo wrote:Maybe we can take a step back and ask how we expect the appeal of the Glenelg beach and foreshore to be maintained if we have big ferries and ships rocking up, not to mention with all manner of cars, buses and trucks trying to access them?

bingo!