Sensational-Adelaide.com

SRW wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:33 pm

Isn't the rail lease holder supposed to maintain the line in working condition? If so, it shouldn't be an issue to run a special service.

HAHAHAHA.. Good one

SRW wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:33 pm

Isn't the rail lease holder supposed to maintain the line in working condition? If so, it shouldn't be an issue to run a special service.

That was how the deal was presented at the time, to reduce backlash from giving up the line, but it's well known that there has been no enforcement of that condition.

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 10, 2024 9:26 am

SRW wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:33 pm

Isn't the rail lease holder supposed to maintain the line in working condition? If so, it shouldn't be an issue to run a special service.

That was how the deal was presented at the time, to reduce backlash from giving up the line, but it's well known that there has been no enforcement of that condition.

Yes, I'm aware. And the consequences of this neglect are why we won't see a Barossa train.

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 10, 2024 9:26 am

SRW wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:33 pm

Isn't the rail lease holder supposed to maintain the line in working condition? If so, it shouldn't be an issue to run a special service.

That was how the deal was presented at the time, to reduce backlash from giving up the line, but it's well known that there has been no enforcement of that condition.

Yes, I'm aware. And the consequences of this neglect are why we won't see a Barossa train.

Still, a lovely dream that the government might force remediation.

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 10, 2024 9:26 am

SRW wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:33 pm

Isn't the rail lease holder supposed to maintain the line in working condition? If so, it shouldn't be an issue to run a special service.

That was how the deal was presented at the time, to reduce backlash from giving up the line, but it's well known that there has been no enforcement of that condition.

Wasn’t all or part of the line handed back to the State Government when Kroemer’s Crossing was severed? Or is it still under Aurizon management?

I don't understand why there can't be an irregular service during peak tourism periods running to the Barossa?
or why doesn't The Ghan or the Indian Pacific run through there?

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 10, 2024 3:20 pm

I don't understand why there can't be an irregular service during peak tourism periods running to the Barossa?
or why doesn't The Ghan or the Indian Pacific run through there?

Different rail gauges, The Ghan and the Indian Pacific run on standard gauge. The only way to get to the Barossa is via the broad gauge Gawler line and the tracks beyond are also broad gauge.

Side problem is that the line doesn’t connect to anywhere after the Barossa. The tracks go as far as Penrice quarry and the full corridor ends at Truro.

I hope Gather Round in Lyndoch helps to make an issue of rail infrastructure in SA. This could form some important commentary if it's kept in the public conscience, and could time well for the next State Election if there is enough momentum.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 11, 2024 9:44 am

I hope Gather Round in Lyndoch helps to make an issue of rail infrastructure in SA. This could form some important commentary if it's kept in the public conscience, and could time well for the next State Election if there is enough momentum.

Agreed. Amidst all the tall promises of rail to Mount Barker and the stalled extension to Aldinga, rail to the Barossa and Roseworthy would by far be the easiest additions to the network.

Spotto wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:38 am

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 11, 2024 9:44 am

I hope Gather Round in Lyndoch helps to make an issue of rail infrastructure in SA. This could form some important commentary if it's kept in the public conscience, and could time well for the next State Election if there is enough momentum.

Agreed. Amidst all the tall promises of rail to Mount Barker and the stalled extension to Aldinga, rail to the Barossa and Roseworthy would by far be the easiest additions to the network.

I'm curious - what do people see as the purpose of bringing back rail services to Roseworthy and the Barossa Valley?

• Is it so that those areas can lose their "country charm" and become more sprawling suburbs full of detached housing for people who commute further to the Adelaide CBD?
• Is it to provide local public transport between the various Barossa towns, Roseworthy, Concordia to the Gawler and Elizabeth CBDs?
• Is it for tourism (including Gather Round)?
• Is it to get trucks off our roads?
• Have I missed other purposes?

All of those need the rails reinstated, but the services "above the rail" would be quite different for each case, and the connecting services and facilities would be different. I'm not a fan of turning the Barossa Valley (or Mount Barker or McLaren Vale) into dormitory suburbs of Adelaide.

Spotto wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:00 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 10, 2024 9:26 am

SRW wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:33 pm

Isn't the rail lease holder supposed to maintain the line in working condition? If so, it shouldn't be an issue to run a special service.

That was how the deal was presented at the time, to reduce backlash from giving up the line, but it's well known that there has been no enforcement of that condition.

Wasn’t all or part of the line handed back to the State Government when Kroemer’s Crossing was severed? Or is it still under Aurizon management?

I'm not exactly sure on the alignment and where it all runs, but how hard would it be to re-route the ghan line through the Barossa?
Would it be possible to have a train line that was dual use?
Sorry, not exactly sure on terminology and if its technically feasible I'm not that into trains.

I just think we're missing a huge opportunity to boost tourism in those areas, and if the Ghan can be sent through there it would help both the Ghan and tourism in those towns.
Another benefit, potentially, is being able to move more people out quicker in the event of a bushfire. I don't know if that would work, I've never been in a bushfire directly. But having another transport option that can move a mass of people simultaneously surely wouldn't be a bad thing? Same with the Barossa. Would surely help alleviate the chaos on the roads that would ensue in a mass evacuation type emergency.

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 11, 2024 6:25 pm

Spotto wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:00 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 10, 2024 9:26 am

That was how the deal was presented at the time, to reduce backlash from giving up the line, but it's well known that there has been no enforcement of that condition.

Wasn’t all or part of the line handed back to the State Government when Kroemer’s Crossing was severed? Or is it still under Aurizon management?

I'm not exactly sure on the alignment and where it all runs, but how hard would it be to re-route the ghan line through the Barossa?
Would it be possible to have a train line that was dual use?
Sorry, not exactly sure on terminology and if its technically feasible I'm not that into trains.

I just think we're missing a huge opportunity to boost tourism in those areas, and if the Ghan can be sent through there it would help both the Ghan and tourism in those towns.
Another benefit, potentially, is being able to move more people out quicker in the event of a bushfire. I don't know if that would work, I've never been in a bushfire directly. But having another transport option that can move a mass of people simultaneously surely wouldn't be a bad thing? Same with the Barossa. Would surely help alleviate the chaos on the roads that would ensue in a mass evacuation type emergency.

At its greatest extent, the Barossa Railway Line had a junction at Nuriootpa with one branch terminating at Angaston (now the Barossa Trail cycling and walking path) and the other branch going to Truro (with a small branch to Penrice Quarry which was the last part operational).

There may have been plans to extend it further as there is an "Old Railway Road" on the plains at Dutton East and Steinfeld that has never been near a railway. It would be plausible for the line to be reinstated and extended to a junction with the now-scrapped GlobeLink northern bypass. I doubt the grades, curves and bridges are suitable for modern mainline operation even if the track was relaid.

Unfortunately, 70 or 80 years of investment in road transport and infrastructure mean it is highly unlikely that the South Australian Railways network of the 1940s-1950s could ever be reinstated. The railways were essential to opening up the country to settlement from the 1870s to the 1930s but then the roads have overtaken it and we closed railways instead of extending to fill in the gaps.

Railways replaced bullock wagons, Cobb and Co coaches, coastal ketches and paddle steamers. In turn, they are replaced by roads, cars and trucks. Nostalgia will not replace decades of investment in infrastructure.

SBD wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:22 pm

I'm curious - what do people see as the purpose of bringing back rail services to Roseworthy and the Barossa Valley?

• Is it so that those areas can lose their "country charm" and become more sprawling suburbs full of detached housing for people who commute further to the Adelaide CBD?
• Is it to provide local public transport between the various Barossa towns, Roseworthy, Concordia to the Gawler and Elizabeth CBDs?

The new housing developments under construction around Roseworthy are projected to to eventually add 12,000 people to the area. A Gawler to Roseworthy extension would be a similar length to the Seaford to Aldinga extension, so not unrealistic.

But unlike Aldinga you have the chance to build a quality transport link in anticipation of the new people so that they’re not forced to drive because there’s no convenient alternative.

Fast forward a decade or so and Roseworthy will be looking a lot like Aldinga does now.

In order to o run trains on the Barossa rail way you first have to reinstate the level crossing just next to the Gawler Central station.

Spotto wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 12, 2024 1:20 am

SBD wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:22 pm

I'm curious - what do people see as the purpose of bringing back rail services to Roseworthy and the Barossa Valley?

• Is it so that those areas can lose their "country charm" and become more sprawling suburbs full of detached housing for people who commute further to the Adelaide CBD?
• Is it to provide local public transport between the various Barossa towns, Roseworthy, Concordia to the Gawler and Elizabeth CBDs?

The new housing developments under construction around Roseworthy are projected to to eventually add 12,000 people to the area. A Gawler to Roseworthy extension would be a similar length to the Seaford to Aldinga extension, so not unrealistic.

But unlike Aldinga you have the chance to build a quality transport link in anticipation of the new people so that they’re not forced to drive because there’s no convenient alternative.

Fast forward a decade or so and Roseworthy will be looking a lot like Aldinga does now.

It's my opinion only, but I can only see the likes of Roseworthy and Two Wells etc being successful, and I mean by success is that it's a service that justifies heavy rail. By that, I mean that it ceases to be something that trams could do, but something that only heavy rail can. That is, long trains packed with passengers travelling at high speeds. That is something trams simply cannot do.

To make that happen, trains have to give people a reason to leave their cars. At the moment, trains are so slow over their routes, there's almost no incentive for someone to switch to trains. The service can never be successful if it relies on people who have no choice...and heavy rail fans. There's simply not enough of those for success.

The only way I could see heavy rail being successful is to run a schedule speed of 90kph or better. It could be done with limited stops and feeder buses to those stops. However, I see neither the political will, nor support among heavy rail supporters for that. So, I suspect it won't happen.

To show how little enthusiasm there is, it would be extremely simple to run a trial such as Gawler, Elizabeth Salisbury Adelaide Railway Station at high speed using excess diesel railcars for a few months to test the theory. Along with trial feeder buses to test that aspect too.

Simple and cheap. If it works, leverage that to argue for Roseworthy and Two Wells. If not, then forget rail to either. Because if a trial is a flop, then the extension to Roseworthy won't happen, and so no point in wasting further time.