[COM] Goodwood Junction Rail Underpass | $110m

[Pressman]

Leave Cross Road as it is and have a long gradual underpass for the rail line. Having it lowering and rising, say, one kilometre either side of Cross road, it would not be too much of an impost on the freight trains. It would need to go under Hilda Terrace too. That's 2 less railway crossings.

Are you sure about that? (the part in blue). If it's true, then you would be starting the decline just after the Seaford line goes under the freight line, which means it would probably be more efficient to put the freight line under the Seaford line. I suspect the freight line would require more than a kilometre to get it back to grade. It would be fine for commuter trains.

The freight (and passenger) lines have a fixed point of elevation as they cross the Goodwood Road subway, so lowering north of there is a pointless exercise.
The assault on the grade "up the hills" begins at Goodwood road, so any lowering to go under Cross Road only makes the existing grade steeper. Look at the elevation of the rail line at Hilda Tce crossing compared to the Cross Road crossing (just 300m apart). Lowering the line an extra 10m at Cross road would need a lot lot more than a kilometre for the grade!

One thing I can see is not seen by many here is that the proposed grade seperation of Freight and passenger lines at Goodwood will aliviate delays at Cross Roads and other crossings further south.
The current arrangement means most freight trains have to slow and stop before getting clearance across the passenger lines at Goodwood, for those traveling down the hill it means a gradual slowing down from further back than Mitcham.
Thus they cross the Cross road level crossing at very slow speed and can sometimes foul the crossing when the train stops for the Goodwood cross over, hence the long delays for the motorists.
With the grade seperation freight trains will no longer need to slow and stop for clearance, and hence pass through the whole area a lot quicker, and thus reducing the delays at Cross Road.

[claybro]

Can someone here advise if there is much freight on the outer harbour line anymore through the Park Terrace crossing. I travel through this intersection a bit and have never been stoped by a freight train. That being said, would it not be better remove the outer harbour line through the park lands altogether, spend the money of the underpass on converting all Outer Harbour, Grange, West lakes Semaphore ,Port etc to frequent light rail, joining the current line from station place (adjacent Bowden station) and therefore remove the need for a level crossing at Park Terrace ? The tram crossing of the Port Road inbound track could be light sequemced with the adjacent lights so as not to hold up traffic on Por Road too much, and trms clear crossings much faster than heavy rail.

[rev]

They all veer north under the bridge on Park Tce, across Torrens road, under the bridge at Regency road, then Islington and beyond.

[claybro]

If frieght now all goes on the Northern route via Torrens Road crossing, the grade separation proposed for Bowden (park terrace) really has nothing to do with efficiency of freight then? I thought thats why the federal gov committed funding to this. If thats the case, this money can be spent on Northwest lightrail as the heavy rail upgrade has been postponed indefinately and clearly the State is not spending the money on what the feds proposed it for in this location anyway. That way the federal gov is paying more toward upgrading suburban rail.

[AG]

If frieght now all goes on the Northern route via Torrens Road crossing, the grade separation proposed for Bowden (park terrace) really has nothing to do with efficiency of freight then? I thought thats why the federal gov committed funding to this. If thats the case, this money can be spent on Northwest lightrail as the heavy rail upgrade has been postponed indefinately and clearly the State is not spending the money on what the feds proposed it for in this location anyway. That way the federal gov is paying more toward upgrading suburban rail.

This is a complex explanation. The grade separation of Park Terrace in Bowden is associated with the efficiency of freight. However, the crossing itself is not used by freight trains. The reason it is associated is because a short distance along the track in the parklands, it crosses the existing freight line to which it will be grade separated. To be feasible and prevent impossible track gradients, it is easier to send the commuter trains on the Outer Harbour Line under the freight trains proceeding along the Gawler Line, and to maintain the underground alignment through the new Bowden Village development which also happens to eliminate the Park Terrace crossing. Freight has not used the Outer Harbour Line for many years.

[claybro]

Many thanks, this clears it all up. But wouldnt removing the outer harbour line through the parklands altogether negate the need for the grade separation and the underground station etc.? As previously said this line could be serviced by light rail via the existing entertainment centre line.

[AG]

Many thanks, this clears it all up. But wouldnt removing the outer harbour line through the parklands altogether negate the need for the grade separation and the underground station etc.? As previously said this line could be serviced by light rail via the existing entertainment centre line.

Certainly a plausible idea - the government under Rann more or less intended to do this (although with trains on the existing alignment left in place, which creates a whole lot of potential technical difficulties in mixing trains and trams) until they canned the idea a few years ago.

[claybro]

So as I suspected, by comitting to the grade separation at Bowden and the 10's of millions to be spent, the state gov is locking itself in to heavy rail on the Outer Haror line( which it appears they have canned anyway). Therefore will make extending the tram to this line more complex and costly due to doubling up with heavy rail.

[rhino]

Outer Harbor is 22km from Adelaide station. Is it practical to run trams that distance? I imagine a trip in by tram from Outer Harbor (or more likely, from Northaven at 20.5km) would take quite a bit longer than the train, unless the tram only accesses the existing train stations, which would seem rather pointless IMO.

[Aidan]

Outer Harbor is 22km from Adelaide station. Is it practical to run trams that distance? I imagine a trip in by tram from Outer Harbor (or more likely, from Northaven at 20.5km) would take quite a bit longer than the train, unless the tram only accesses the existing train stations, which would seem rather pointless IMO.

It would not be pointless at all - there would be two major advantages:
Firstly the trams could penetrate Port Adelaide better. Now that the trams go a different way, there's space for an on street line separated form the rest of the traffic. This wouldn't add too much to journey times, but it would make the line more effective in serving destinations other than the City.
Secondly, there's the option of stopping only at existing stations south of Taperoo, but more closely spaced stops north of Taperoo, so only the northern Lefevre Peninsula residents would have a slower journey and for most of them the benefits of lower access times would more than make up for it. It would also better serve the Outer Harbour industrial area, especially if the balloon loop is reinstated.

But to get light rail up to an acceptable speed there are technical challenges to overcome. The Entertainment Centre line is far too slow, so a direct line through the Parklands would still be needed.

[Hooligan]

Rhino, you have no need to reply in this thread, no one does actually.

Aidan has spoken.

[claybro]

Northern Peninsula aside, the distance from major destinations for the light rail, Woodville TOD about 8km, Port Adelaide 14km and West Lakes and semaphore about the same. Compare this to the Glenelg tram, about 12k to Mosely SQ all failry similar and this run is hugely popular.. I dont believe this line will ever be both Heavy and light rail, we cant even afford electrifying whats already there. I mearly suggested removing the Bowden grade separation and underground station would save some $100 million plus of already comitted FEDERAL money. This FEDERAL money would cover light rail to a least Woodville TOD and allow for gradual expansion to other areas paid for by the state govt.. In my experience there is barely enough passenger traffic after Glanville to warrant heavy rail anyway.

[mattblack]

The feds wouldnt allow money for projects that they have allocated money to, to be spent on other projects. If the State gov scaps the underpass we get nothing and will have to apply again for a federal handout which will be weighed up against other projects nationally. That not going to happen, we will take the money and go with it, not because the project is needed urgently now but because the feds are stumping up the cash now. Look at the superway, much the same deal.

[claybro]

So to sum all this up.
1. We are to spend $100-200MIL plus on grade separation that would not be necessary if the O.H. line through the parklands was removed.
2. Once Bowden grade separation/underground station is in place a commitment to heavy rail on the O.H. line is set in stone.
3. Once heavy rail is electrified to Outer Harbour, it will be technically difficult and prohibitavely expensive to duplicate heavy and light rail on this line.
4. The tram will teminate only ever at the entertainment centre and remain stranded from connection to West Lakes/Semaphore/Port.(wasted opportunity)
Looks like the end of "coast to coast light rail".
And lets not get started on how many hundreds of millions are being spent on widening what was already the widest least conjested section of South Road (The Superway).

[gumbi]

While I think it is a good idea to see light rail down to Port Adelaide, West Lakes and Semaphore I don't consider that it should entirely replace heavy rail services. The capacity of say a two set 3000 series compared with a standard tram is obviously much greater. If this part of the city is going to accommodate the sort of growth which the government has envisaged I would think that heavy rail needs to be part of the plan. The concurrent use of the line could be achieved by having heavy rail only stopping at limited stations, etc.

I do think that the Grange Line could be entirely converted to light rail however (preferably with one track for each direction). Heavy rail on the Grange line seems a bit odd!