News & Discussion: Other Transport Projects

[jase111]

The views are at odds with bodies such as Infrastructure Australia, which are reluctant to approve federal financing for new road projects without tolling.
Thought this was interesting re tolls

[PeFe]

$443m to put city train lines underground

An artist's impression of the revamped Victoria St train intersection


DELAYS at four major Adelaide level crossings will end when train lines go underground in a $443 million facelift for the city's rail network.
Tomorrow's Federal Budget will include a commitment to spend almost half a billion dollars of state and federal funding money to upgrade railway stations and build rail underpasses at key Adelaide locations.

The plans include underpasses and improvements at three main locations, one just north of the CBD at Bowden and the other two just south of the city at Keswick and Goodwood.

The changes are intended to increase traffic flow and road safety, improve rail freight competitiveness and separate heavy trains from commuter services, allowing both to be more reliable.

All major upgrades are in the federal seat of Adelaide, held by Gillard Government frontbencher Kate Ellis.

The level crossing at Victoria St, Goodwood, will also be upgraded and both Keswick and Bowden train stations will be given "substantial improvements".

Construction is scheduled to begin as early as next year following more design work.

The upgrades will allow commuter services and freight trains, of which there are some 4000 per year and growing, to run on separate grades - one under the other.

It will also enable faster and longer freight services to operate between Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, from the present 1500m limit up to a more cost-effective 1800m in length.

The Government believes the reduced transport times from not having to stop for passenger services and the extra capacity of longer trains will aid rail competitiveness and help take some freight off roads.

Recommended by Infrastructure Australia, the under-groundings will end the current problem of goods trains being required to stop and start to let commuter trains through where their lines cross each other.

One of the city's more dangerous and time-consuming level crossings, at Leader St on the southern perimeter of the Showgrounds, will be removed in the works, and pedestrian access to the Showgrounds and parklands will also be improved.

Three others at Bowden's East St, Gibson St, and Park Tce are also to be removed.

The commitment is likely to be one of the rare wins in an otherwise tough Federal Budget to be unveiled by Treasurer Wayne Swan tomorrow.

The Government believes the project is justified on economic grounds: "Eliminating the two bottlenecks at Goodwood and just north of the CBD will complement the nearly $350 million Federal Labor has so far committed, including as part of our Economic Stimulus Plan, upgrading this rail corridor," said Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese.

"All up, we've rebuilt nearly a third of the nation's interstate network in just four years."

The project's total value is $443 million with $232.1 million coming from Canberra and the balance coming from state coffers.

The expenditure is good news for Adelaide which has suffered for many decades with poor rail infrastructure and a chronic lack of investment.

Mr Swan described the Budget as "the fifth chapter" in strengthening the economy for "all Australians".

In his economic note issued yesterday, he defended his push towards a small surplus as "Australia's best defence against an uncertain global outlook".

"During the week, we saw the extent of the challenges facing Europe with the unemployment rate edging up to a record 10.9 per cent, with about 17.4 million men and women in the Euro area looking for work."

But the Opposition's economic spokesman Joe Hockey dismissed the mixed messages coming from Mr Swan and predicted the expected $1.5 billion surplus would prove illusory.

"Well, all he will be doing is promising a surplus," he said.

"This year he promised, originally, a deficit of $12 billion, then it became a deficit of $22 billion and then a deficit of $37 billion."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/fast-trac ... 6348151422

[rev]

I guess this means the under grounding of the Bowden station is going ahead then?
Too bad they aren't doing the Torrens road crossing as well.
They should tunnel it from the Ovingham station to just past the Hawker St crossing. Of course I'm being selfish since I live in the wider area and use those roads regularly and am constantly frustrated by the queues as freight trains go past.
I guess the South Road crossing will be dealt with separately as part of the overall South Road upgrade.

[[Shuz]]

I guess this means the under grounding of the Bowden station is going ahead then?
Too bad they aren't doing the Torrens road crossing as well.
They should tunnel it from the Ovingham station to just past the Hawker St crossing. Of course I'm being selfish since I live in the wider area and use those roads regularly and am constantly frustrated by the queues as freight trains go past.
I guess the South Road crossing will be dealt with separately as part of the overall South Road upgrade.

I completely agree with you, re; Hawker Street and Torrens Road crossings. I've already written to Kate Ellis on this matter. As to be expected, I never got a reply back either.

[Wayno]

$443m to put city train lines underground
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/fast-trac ... 6348151422

At first glance i saw CITY and VICTORIA and though we were getting an underground station in Vic Square!

I bet the Adelaide Hills residents are miffed. They've been pushing for freight to be detoured out north for many years - the Keswick/Goodwood upgrades put any thought of that to rest.

[rhino]

$443m to put city train lines underground
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/fast-trac ... 6348151422

At first glance i saw CITY and VICTORIA and though we were getting an underground station in Vic Square!

I bet the Adelaide Hills residents are miffed. They've been pushing for freight to be detoured out north for many years - the Keswick/Goodwood upgrades put any thought of that to rest.

I'm an Adelaide Hill resident, and I think this is awesome. I want to keep seeing trains in the hills for many more years - if we don't, we'll be seeing more trucks, simple as that.

[crawf]

This now takes the railway investment to over $3 billion for Adelaide alone. Fantastic news, and badly needed.

Three others at Bowden's East St, Gibson St, and Park Tce are also to be removed.

This could be the one-kilometre tunnel that was earmarked by the State Government a couple of months ago, which included Adelaide's first true underground train station. Nevertheless this will make the area more enticing to the future 3,500 residents in the Bowden Village development. At the moment Bowden Station is literary a dump.

Interested to what will happen to derelict Keswick aswell. It's right near the Showgrounds and Army Barracks, aka future TOD in the making.

[Wayno]

I'm an Adelaide Hill resident, and I think this is awesome. I want to keep seeing trains in the hills for many more years - if we don't, we'll be seeing more trucks, simple as that.

yes rhino, but you are 'special' and that's why we like you

[Aidan]

$443m to put city train lines underground
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/fast-trac ... 6348151422

At first glance i saw CITY and VICTORIA and though we were getting an underground station in Vic Square!

I bet the Adelaide Hills residents are miffed. They've been pushing for freight to be detoured out north for many years - the Keswick/Goodwood upgrades put any thought of that to rest.

I'm an Adelaide Hill resident, and I think this is awesome. I want to keep seeing trains in the hills for many more years - if we don't, we'll be seeing more trucks, simple as that.

Let me get this straight: you think keeping the trains running via a route that requires a high power to weight ratio to haul them, and prevents containers from being double stacked, will prevent us seeing more trucks?

Logic dictates the opposite: seeing the trains bypass the Adelaide Hills will slash costs, greatly increasing rail's (currently rather low) market share on the Adelaide to Melbourne route, resulting in fewer trucks running through the Adelaide Hills.

[rhino]

A fair amount of research has been done by many of the people on Railpage with regard to the time it would take for rail freight to get from Murray Bridge to Adelaide via the northern route, with the conclusion that it would take longer than it does on the current route through the hills. As you say, trucks are currently quicker than railfreight through the hills - using the proposed (by Mitcham Council) northern route, the trucks will be even quicker, compared to the train. In today's "just-in-time" freight climate, time is everything. Further to this, the northern route will effectively turn the Adelaide Freight Terminal into a dead-end terminus, making rail freight into Adelaide even less attractive, more of an imposition, and strengthening the argument for road haulage even more.

You comment on the high power to weight ratio required to haul the trains over the hills, but this cost has to be weighed against the cost of aquiring the land (which is currently freehold) for the new corridor, and then the hundreds of millions to build the infrastructure - how many decades will freight forwarders be paying that off for? Will it really make railing freight cheaper? I doubt it. So, not cheaper, and not quicker.

The route through the hills is being improved as we speak (to wit the new 1800m loop being built at Ambleside) and this proposal includes extending more loops to 1800m as well, which will increase train capacity. In time the roadbed through the tunnels will be lowered (as has already been done in Prt Augusta, opening up the western and northern lines for double-stacking), the alignment will be improved in places, and superelevation added to help reduce noise problems caused by wheel and flange squeal.

From everything I can see, logic dictates that you are rather shortsighted in you snide comments.

[Hooligan]

At the moment Bowden Station is literary a dump.

I once saw a guy sniffing paint at that station.

[Pressman]

Let me get this straight: you think keeping the trains running via a route that requires a high power to weight ratio to haul them, and prevents containers from being double stacked, will prevent us seeing more trucks?

Ahhh the old Double Stack Myth!
The Adelaide hills are NOT the only part of the rail route that prevent double stacking.
If say you spend the millions to bypass the hills then if you send a double stack train off to Melbourne it will get to just east of the Murray Bridge railway station before the top container is wipped out in a tunnel, then it might wipe out the top of the structure of the rail bridge across the river, then a few kilometres further there is another over bridge (old Highway 1) to contend with, then just past Tailem Bend, yep another over bridge, and yet another just past Tintinara, Yet another at Bordertown.
And guess what you find at Kaniva?
Yes, yet another overbridge!
Dimboola, Wail, Horsham, Stawell, Great Western ....... you get it yet? maybe a dozen more before you even get near Melbourne!

Logic dictates the opposite: seeing the trains bypass the Adelaide Hills will slash costs, greatly increasing rail's (currently rather low) market share on the Adelaide to Melbourne route, resulting in fewer trucks running through the Adelaide Hills.

Honestly, how can making the rail distance between Melbourne and Adelaide greater increase rails market share?
Even with an Adelaide Hills bypass, Double Stacking is just NOT possible on this route without major dollars spent right along the route and in Melbourne itself.

[mutt]

are they really going to bother with an underground station at Bowden? does anybody even use this station?
it would seem to add quite a deal of expense to the project

maybe easier to move it a couple of hundred metres down the line

[Aidan]

A fair amount of research has been done by many of the people on Railpage with regard to the time it would take for rail freight to get from Murray Bridge to Adelaide via the northern route, with the conclusion that it would take longer than it does on the current route through the hills. As you say, trucks are currently quicker than railfreight through the hills - using the proposed (by Mitcham Council) northern route, the trucks will be even quicker, compared to the train. In today's "just-in-time" freight climate, time is everything.

TIME IS NOT EVERYTHING FOR JIT FREIGHT. PREDICTABILITY IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT!

Do you honestly think customers would abandon rail if it took half an hour longer? For those few who time genuinely is everything, the existing route through the hills is far too slow and they're always going to stick to using trucks (or in some cases air freight).

Further to this, the northern route will effectively turn the Adelaide Freight Terminal into a dead-end terminus, making rail freight into Adelaide even less attractive, more of an imposition, and strengthening the argument for road haulage even more.

It was effectively a dead end terminus back when there was a break of gauge, but that wasn't a problem. Operators gained an advantage when standardization gave them the opportunity to run trains straight through, but that's insignificant compared to the advantage of a better route.

You comment on the high power to weight ratio required to haul the trains over the hills, but this cost has to be weighed against the cost of aquiring the land (which is currently freehold) for the new corridor, and then the hundreds of millions to build the infrastructure - how many decades will freight forwarders be paying that off for? Will it really make railing freight cheaper? I doubt it. So, not cheaper, and not quicker.

If the entire cost is all passed on to the users (and in particular, the early users) then no, it probably wouldn't make it any cheaper. But this is nation building infrastructure for a rapidly growing country - why should the cost all fall directly on the users when it will result in our industry becoming more productive? And are the users to be charged the cost of the infrastructure that failure to build the line makes necessary (such as Bowden grade separation and an underpass at Goodwood)? And what about all those long delays at suburban level crossings where the problems will remain unaddressed - should the rail users be paying to compensate road users?

We should have built a Hills Bypass Line at the time of standardization, when the land was much cheaper. In another couple of decades, will we regret failing to build it in 2012 when the land was much cheaper?

The route through the hills is being improved as we speak (to wit the new 1800m loop being built at Ambleside) and this proposal includes extending more loops to 1800m as well, which will increase train capacity. In time the roadbed through the tunnels will be lowered (as has already been done in Prt Augusta, opening up the western and northern lines for double-stacking),

I don't recall any tunnels at Pt Aug. Are you referring to bridges? They lowered a few there (and similarly, one under Grand Junction Road) but lowering track is a much more complicated operation in tunnels than under bridges. The depth requirements for double stacking mean that replacing ballasted track with slab track (as they did in NSW) would be insufficient - they'd have to cut through the rock and remove it- all in limited space conditions. It can be done of course, but it's not cheap.

As for more and longer passing loops, that's always a good idea no matter which way the railway goes. But wouldn't passing loops be cheaper to construct on a bypass line than up in the hills?

the alignment will be improved in places, and superelevation added to help reduce noise problems caused by wheel and flange squeal.

Cant can't do much to solve the problem. There will still be thousands of people adversely affected.

From everything I can see, logic dictates that you are rather shortsighted in you snide comments.

I hope now I've explained it better you can overcome your own myopia. Spending hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars on mitigating measures is a false economy when the benefits of solving the problem are so much greater. I'm all for interim solutions when they're cheap and initially effective, but what we're about to do is neither.

[Aidan]

Let me get this straight: you think keeping the trains running via a route that requires a high power to weight ratio to haul them, and prevents containers from being double stacked, will prevent us seeing more trucks?

Ahhh the old Double Stack Myth!
The Adelaide hills are NOT the only part of the rail route that prevent double stacking.

True, but apart from the section in the Adelaide Hills, the rest of the route could be upgraded to handle double stacking relatively cheaply.

Honestly, how can making the rail distance between Melbourne and Adelaide greater increase rails market share?

Would you rather it revert to its former route via Ballarat? Distance isn't everything, and lower running costs can be passed on to customers.