News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[Goodsy]

Although impossible to tell from such a vague map, it does not appear to be a proper loop, more of a u shaped through tunnel. It looks like a good option for Adelaide as it covers the east end as well, gives access to the Mall(east end) and yet avoids the pitfalls as discussed of a circular loop. As for Adelaide station, I believe the underground will be a different station, but adjacent to the existing station linked by an underground walkway, as someone mentioned, similar to the Perth setup. I can say it is quite a walk via the underground link from Perth surface station to Perth underground and they don't really feel linked. I think in Adelaides case a station directly under north Terrace and linking via the existing pedestrian underpass would be a much better setup.

It looks like it supports loop services from/to the south, and probably can handle north-south through services, but others would generally be at the existing station. north and northwest services from Adelaide would be odd if they could be on either ex-Seaford services on the loop or terminated services from the far end of the station.

I can't work out from the map where any underground station(s) in the city would be, either.

Adelaide Railway Station, Hindmarsh Square, Victoria Square and a possible fourth somewhere near West Terrace

[Westside]

I'd hazard a guess that the plan is alluding to Gawler and Seaford (incl Flinders) lines being through linked via the underground line. Then Belair line remains as is terminating at the surface ARS via mile end. OH (and associated spur lines) are light rail and enter the city either via the existing Port Rd detour or the proposal along war memorial drive.

Oh and thanks for the correction on the tbms. Although my main point is that they are an expensive tunnelling method still so will only be used when absolutely necessary.

[ml69]

Although impossible to tell from such a vague map, it does not appear to be a proper loop, more of a u shaped through tunnel. It looks like a good option for Adelaide as it covers the east end as well, gives access to the Mall(east end) and yet avoids the pitfalls as discussed of a circular loop. As for Adelaide station, I believe the underground will be a different station, but adjacent to the existing station linked by an underground walkway, as someone mentioned, similar to the Perth setup. I can say it is quite a walk via the underground link from Perth surface station to Perth underground and they don't really feel linked. I think in Adelaides case a station directly under north Terrace and linking via the existing pedestrian underpass would be a much better setup.

It looks like it supports loop services from/to the south, and probably can handle north-south through services, but others would generally be at the existing station. north and northwest services from Adelaide would be odd if they could be on either ex-Seaford services on the loop or terminated services from the far end of the station.

I can't work out from the map where any underground station(s) in the city would be, either.

Adelaide Railway Station, Hindmarsh Square, Victoria Square and a possible fourth somewhere near West Terrace

Remember that map was from the ITLUP plan of 2013, and was very much a conceptual "sketch" of a possible route.

When things get more serious and detailed planning to support a business case occurs, I believe a shorter alignment with fewer CBD stations will prevail.

Why? COST. Underground rail lines and underground stations are HORRENDOUSLY EXPENSIVE.

As an example, Auckland's City Rail Link tunnel project is 3.4km long, with 3 new underground stations to be built. Cost = $3.4Billion. Brisbane's Cross River Rail project has a 5.9km tunnel, with 4 new underground stations to be built. Cost = $5.4Billion.

Therefore each underground station costs approx $400-600M (depending on construction technique used). Rail tunnels with ventilation systems, train control systems etc also set you back approx $400-600M per kilometre.

So the U-shaped rail tunnel option (with 4 stations and approx 4km of rail tunnel) could cost anywhere between $3-5 Billion. Do you really think the SA government could fund this anytime before, say, 2040?

However, with a shorter alignment straight down King William St then turning down Grote St would make a 2.8km tunnel, perhaps with only 1 underground station at the Currie/Grenfell intersection with KW St, would make it a $2 Billion project and far more likely to get the business case approved.

[Eurostar]

Thats ok we can always sell the Parliament House and then Question Time can be held in Victoria Square

[Aidan]

ml69,
Underground stations are notoriously expensive, but the tunnels need not be.

The SA government could fund it this year if there was the political will.

But a King William Street route is a non starter. Adelaide's railways have a minimum curve radius of 200m. It may be possible to get them a bit tighter (at the expense of speed) but a KWS - North Terrace curve would still require a huge amount of building demolition. Even a Gawler Place alignment, which I favoured for a decade, would be difficult to get to North Terrace from. It would be difficult to avoid tunnelling under Parliament house, and the U-Park has deep foundations so could probably not be tunnelled under without demolishing.

[Norman]

Cost is not the only factor that will be considered. If there is a higher benefit ratio in getting the train line further east, they will (or should) do it.

[aaronjameslange]

The glenelg tramline used to terminate at victoria square, about 4-5 city blocks away from rundle mall and north terrace. As soon as it was extended to city west usage skyrocketed. Why? Because now it went somewhere that people actually wanted to go. Theres no point having a cheap and cheerful underground loop with only one station if its not conveniently located. The mall and vic sq/ central markets would need to be serviced at minimum. I live in gawler and dont shop in the mall as parking is expensive. Im also not going to carry my christmas shopping and kids from the current adelaide station, nor transfer to a tram to get to the mall. Put a station under the myer centre similar to QVB in sydney and now rundle mall is far more accessible.

[1NEEDS2POST]

Grote Street is probably wide enough that they can construct a cut and cover tunnel in the middle of the road without completely cutting off traffic.

Regardless of how the tunnel is constructed, the Gawler and Outer Harbor lines need to be electrified first. I can't imagine DMUs running through the tunnels too often.

[Goodsy]

Grote Street is probably wide enough that they can construct a cut and cover tunnel in the middle of the road without completely cutting off traffic.

Regardless of how the tunnel is constructed, the Gawler and Outer Harbor lines need to be electrified first. I can't imagine DMUs running through the tunnels too often.

Gawler is being electrified as we speak, and Outer Harbour trains wouldn't run through go through the city loop (Hopefully)

[Nathan]

Why wouldn't you run Outer Harbour through as well? If you're going to do it, do it properly.

[claybro]

Remember that map was from the ITLUP plan of 2013, and was very much a conceptual "sketch" of a possible route.

When things get more serious and detailed planning to support a business case occurs, I believe a shorter alignment with fewer CBD stations will prevail.

Why? COST. Underground rail lines and underground stations are HORRENDOUSLY EXPENSIVE.

As an example, Auckland's City Rail Link tunnel project is 3.4km long, with 3 new underground stations to be built. Cost = $3.4Billion. Brisbane's Cross River Rail project has a 5.9km tunnel, with 4 new underground stations to be built. Cost = $5.4Billion.

Therefore each underground station costs approx $400-600M (depending on construction technique used). Rail tunnels with ventilation systems, train control systems etc also set you back approx $400-600M per kilometre.

So the U-shaped rail tunnel option (with 4 stations and approx 4km of rail tunnel) could cost anywhere between $3-5 Billion. Do you really think the SA government could fund this anytime before, say, 2040?

However, with a shorter alignment straight down King William St then turning down Grote St would make a 2.8km tunnel, perhaps with only 1 underground station at the Currie/Grenfell intersection with KW St, would make it a $2 Billion project and far more likely to get the business case approved.

Prices of these projects vary wildly. The cost of the Perth/airport link is $1.8 Billion including 8km of tunnels, 2 new underground station and 1 new surface station.

Why wouldn't you run Outer Harbour through as well? If you're going to do it, do it properly.

As this is apparently to be designed for through running, and if the north/south lines are connected, there apparently will be not be a "destination" line for Outer Harbour, as the Belair line is not to be electrified, unless they us the OH originating trains to run through to the revamped Tonsley (Flinders) line, which might work.

[TorrensSA]

Outer Harbor going through the loop would be hard, because where dos it go after? Can you run diesel trains through the tunnel? Belair (and Tonsley) would be the logical choice if all lines get electrified. You could easily run 20 tph in each direction so all trains could run through. The numbers are roughly Seaford / Tonsley 12 tph, Belair 4 tph, Gawler 8 tph and OH / Grange 8 tph. So you have 16 tph in each direction at the moment. With better signalling you could run up to 30 tph, so this leaves plenty of room fo future expansion. This is assuming a tunnel with two lines. Services could be Gawler to Seaford, Grange / Port Dock to Tonsley (Flinders) and Outer Harbour to Belair, it doesn't really matter there will be a lot of turn backs at Mile End / ARS yards.

[1NEEDS2POST]

Outer Harbor going through the loop would be hard, because where dos it go after? Can you run diesel trains through the tunnel? Belair (and Tonsley) would be the logical choice if all lines get electrified. You could easily run 20 tph in each direction so all trains could run through. The numbers are roughly Seaford / Tonsley 12 tph, Belair 4 tph, Gawler 8 tph and OH / Grange 8 tph. So you have 16 tph in each direction at the moment. With better signalling you could run up to 30 tph, so this leaves plenty of room fo future expansion. This is assuming a tunnel with two lines. Services could be Gawler to Seaford, Grange / Port Dock to Tonsley (Flinders) and Outer Harbour to Belair, it doesn't really matter there will be a lot of turn backs at Mile End / ARS yards.

This is thinking outside the box: all railcars are fitted with Scharfenberg couplers that take almost no time to couple/uncouple. Outer Harbor, Grange and Belair can be DMUs. Coming from the north, at ARS, a DMU couples to the back of an EMU and gets towed through the tunnel with their engines off. At Goodwood, they uncouple and go their different ways.

My preferred solution is just four tracks in the tunnel and run EMUs.

[Aidan]

It would make more sense for the Outer Harbour and Belair lines to be converted to light rail. The economics have shifted from favouring heavy rail to favouring light rail. If we widened our light rail system to 2.65m the advantage would be greater, but that's something for another thread. What I will say here, though, is that light rail still needs to be fast; if it's too slow, passengers lose interest.

1NEEDSTOPOST, it doesn't make sense to have 4 tracks on the same alignment.

[Goodsy]

Connect Outer Harbor and Belair lines by tunneling the entire length of Unley Road. Added benefit of removing the Cross road level crossing




go big or go home