Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1840
Oh oh! MEEE!!Norman wrote:monotonehell wrote:OMG sorry Norm - I swear it didn't used to do that!
It's still a bit hard to read though...
You guys should trust me more.
Now, who wants some magic potion?
Your conclusion that it would be a technically very viable route puzzles me, as you seem to be the only other person on this thread who's worked out how to get topographic information on http://www.atlas.sa.gov.au* so you should be able to see clearly that Waterfall Gully's surrounded by steep slopes on all sides (with the obvious exception of the northern end). Do you mean Mount Osmond?Shuz wrote:I was having a look into it as well, and I think there is one other very viable route - via Waterfull Gully. It's not so much a problem gradient-wise, which can be eliminated by use of bridges and tunnels, its more of the impact onto the environment, considering it runs course adjacent a watershed, through Cleland and Mount Lofty National Parks. And then theres the issue of accessing it into the city (after it finishes navigating the Hills) I know Linden Avenue in Hazelwood Park was designated as the original Hills Freeway corridor as part of the MATS 1968, hence why the road is seemingly wide! And would be able to support a train line in its median, but once it reaches Greenhill Road - it would have to be undergrounded.
Cost: $1-1.5b. Environmentally, you'll have the Greens waging jihad.
No, but steep slopes determined where they built the freeway. To get from Crafers to the Adelaide Plains without detouring through the foothills, only two routes were suitable: Glen Osmond and Mount Osmond.Shuz wrote:Steep slopes didn't stop them from building the freeway did it?
You've never actually been to Waterfall Gully, have you? The gradient is quite shallow in the suburb of Waterfall Gully (though the road and houses would prevent any railway being constructed). But it's not called Waterfall Gully for nothing - at the southern end, there's a near vertical drop where the big waterfall is! That alone would be enough to rule out a railway, but some of the gradients above the waterfall are also too steep.You seem to be concerned about the slope of the valley on either side of the river, of course that's going to be the case. I'm talking about the gradient up the river (moreso adjacent to it, which is favourable for a train line to navigate).
I think so. It only gave a percentage in the book I was reading.Shuz wrote:Does that mean the gradient rises 6m every 100m?