News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[TorrensSA]

Whats the point of getting rid of stations anyway? The train is there to service the community, why does someone in a low density outer suburb deserve a train station but someone in a medium density middle suburb doesn't. Yes some stations can be amalgamated. We should be building higher density housing and retail around train stations. Kudla is an odd station, the way Adelaide is growing Kudla would make a good TOD, Adelaide's growth boundary should be Gawler, this is filling in a gap. Kudla already has public transport, expressway on/off ramps etc.

[NTRabbit]

And having some students use a railway station twice a day.....is that enough to justify its existence?

It's the sole reason Mile End stays open, and Marion not only stays open but received notable upgrade works during electrification.

Private schools have swing.

[rubberman]

Whats the point of getting rid of stations anyway? The train is there to service the community, why does someone in a low density outer suburb deserve a train station but someone in a medium density middle suburb doesn't. Yes some stations can be amalgamated. We should be building higher density housing and retail around train stations. Kudla is an odd station, the way Adelaide is growing Kudla would make a good TOD, Adelaide's growth boundary should be Gawler, this is filling in a gap. Kudla already has public transport, expressway on/off ramps etc.

I have no problem with closely spaced stops. However, if you have closely spaced stops, then you don't need heavy rail in Adelaide. Trams can do it cheaper.

By all means keep close spaced stops and convert to light rail.

If, however, you want to justify heavy rail, then that means high speeds and large passenger numbers. Adelaide doesn’t have large passenger numbers, and is unlikely to get those passenger numbers unless it can get the higher speeds or higher density population like Sydney and Melbourne.

In response to Norman above, Sydney and Melbourne have passenger loadings and train lengths that Adelaide simply doesn't have. Trams couldn't do the job, so, regardless of speeds, Sydney and Melbourne have to use heavy rail. That's not the case for Adelaide. Trams could easily carry Hills and Outer Harbor passengers.

So, what do people want? Higher speed heavy rail with fewer but larger stations fed by buses, or trams using present stops and spacings?

[1NEEDS2POST]

Pedestrian access is still a problem for many stations in Adelaide. This discussion about North Adelaide is one example. The thing is, it's very inexpensive to solve compared to other infrastructure projects. There are plans to remove level crossings from Adelaide, but few talk about grade separation of pedestrians. The thing is, grade separation of little pedestrians is far far far cheaper than grade separation of railways and roads and it directly leads to higher public transport usage.

We need more subways in Adelaide. More pedestrian subways, that is.

I know of no way that trying to make heavy rail act as if it were a tram (ie short station distances between stops) can ever be either economic, or entice drivers from cars.

That has little to do with the trams and has more to do with the fact that you want short stop spacing. A tram/train/bus that stops frequently is always going to be slow. All modes can be built to accelerate just as fast as one another. Many overseas metros accelerate much faster than Adelaide's trains. I see no reason why they can't fit more powerful motors to the new EMUs and make them accelerate and brake harder.

Whats the point of getting rid of stations anyway? The train is there to service the community, why does someone in a low density outer suburb deserve a train station but someone in a medium density middle suburb doesn't. Yes some stations can be amalgamated. We should be building higher density housing and retail around train stations. Kudla is an odd station, the way Adelaide is growing Kudla would make a good TOD, Adelaide's growth boundary should be Gawler, this is filling in a gap. Kudla already has public transport, expressway on/off ramps etc.

Property development and transport planning should be complementary, but they're not in Adelaide. For all of the metro railway stations, every 200 m from the station should be zoned to allow medium density residential.

[SBD]

Many stations had pedestrian subways that were filled in 20-30 years ago in the name of "safety". I wonder if general society has become sufficiently more respectful to open those subways and have passengers feel safe getting off their train after dark and walking through the subway.

[TorrensSA]

How can a tram with a capacity of 150 people do the job of a train that has the capacity of 500 people? (1000+ if you use 6 car trains, crush load is 1500 per 6 carriage Comeng train in Melbourne). The Seaford line has 9 trains an hour in peak direction, so a capacity of 4500 people, thats 30 trams of 150 people. The point is light-rail can't handle the demand the Seaford and Gawler lines (should) have, trams are cheaper but they can't move the amount of people a train can. Is it really cheaper if you have to couple together 3 trams, for one train? I like trams but for the north-south line we should really be adding a fourth carriage to some trains, not talking about light-rail conversion. We should be amalgamating or moving some stations to better locations rather than closing them down - eg you can close Greenfields since it was "moved" to became Mawson Interchange. Emerson might disappear due to the north-south corridor project, Hove and Warradale should combine when Brighton Road is grade separated and you can build a new Marino between the two Marinos.

[Spotto]

you can build a new Marino between the two Marinos.

They’re only 600m apart there’s almost no point demolishing both to rebuild halfway. Marino station is well-located to carry the weight of both stations on its own, the bus stop is right next to it and the former rail yard/siding land is valuable for an expanded carpark with more space to grow than they’ll likely ever need.

[Norman]

Property development and transport planning should be complementary, but they're not in Adelaide. For all of the metro railway stations, every 200 m from the station should be zoned to allow medium density residential.

Many development plan policy areas near train stations already allow increased density. What's missing is private sector action and consumer demand.

I have no problem with closely spaced stops. However, if you have closely spaced stops, then you don't need heavy rail in Adelaide. Trams can do it cheaper.

By all means keep close spaced stops and convert to light rail.

If, however, you want to justify heavy rail, then that means high speeds and large passenger numbers. Adelaide doesn’t have large passenger numbers, and is unlikely to get those passenger numbers unless it can get the higher speeds or higher density population like Sydney and Melbourne.

In response to Norman above, Sydney and Melbourne have passenger loadings and train lengths that Adelaide simply doesn't have. Trams couldn't do the job, so, regardless of speeds, Sydney and Melbourne have to use heavy rail. That's not the case for Adelaide. Trams could easily carry Hills and Outer Harbor passengers.

I have been on several trips on the Outer Harbor line, including express services, and they are very well patronised with standing room only on most services, even at 15 minute frequencies. Shifting those will require something like a 5 minute frequency for trams, even without considering increasing population along the corridors at the locations I have already talked about. People will have to stand for longer parts of their journeys as trams don't offer the same amount of sets per carriage.

Replacing the Outer Harbor line with a tram is the same as replacing a B777 between Adelaide and Dubai with a B737. Smaller and less comfortable over long journeys. There aren't many light rail systems that branch 22km out of the city CBD (all 3 lines in Sydney are just shy of 25 km in total).

So, what do people want? Higher speed heavy rail with fewer but larger stations fed by buses, or trams using present stops and spacings?

You're creating a solution for a problem that does not exist. We should build on the strengths of what we have, not overhaul the system yet again.

[Nort]

Does Bowden deserve 2 railway stations serving the area? You already have one heavy rail line, one tram line and buses......How much public transport do you want for such a small area? The Gawler railway line is better utilised as some sort of express line that serves the outer northern suburbs, meaning less stops in the inner city.

Would I change my mind if the Gawler was split into 2 separate lines, one all stops into the city from Virginia/Salisbury North and the other a City-Salisbury express then all stops to Gawler. Yes.

Nort wrote

High peak hour usage is a good reason to keep transport infrastructure, yes.

I will repeat myself again...what are the actual numbers????? 9 students using the station in peak hours does not constitute "high peak usage"

When I used to be on the train around those times, probably 30+ people getting off the train each time it stopped in peak.

[OlympusAnt]

bring in request stops

nothing worse than stopping at every stop and no-one gets on/off at half of 'em

[PeFe]

bring in request stops

nothing worse than stopping at every stop and no-one gets on/off at half of 'em

Well that just implies that there are too many stops..........circular argument.

[rubberman]

Pedestrian access is still a problem for many stations in Adelaide. This discussion about North Adelaide is one example. The thing is, it's very inexpensive to solve compared to other infrastructure projects. There are plans to remove level crossings from Adelaide, but few talk about grade separation of pedestrians. The thing is, grade separation of little pedestrians is far far far cheaper than grade separation of railways and roads and it directly leads to higher public transport usage.

We need more subways in Adelaide. More pedestrian subways, that is.

I know of no way that trying to make heavy rail act as if it were a tram (ie short station distances between stops) can ever be either economic, or entice drivers from cars.

That has little to do with the trams and has more to do with the fact that you want short stop spacing. A tram/train/bus that stops frequently is always going to be slow. All modes can be built to accelerate just as fast as one another. Many overseas metros accelerate much faster than Adelaide's trains. I see no reason why they can't fit more powerful motors to the new EMUs and make them accelerate and brake harder.



Property development and transport planning should be complementary, but they're not in Adelaide. For all of the metro railway stations, every 200 m from the station should be zoned to allow medium density residential.

Well, yes, you can put in bigger motors in big vehicles. That doesn't change the fact that you can do the exact same job with a smaller and cheaper vehicle.

Nobody disputes you can do it, the question is why should the taxpayer pay extra to achieve the same outcome?

[Nort]

bring in request stops

nothing worse than stopping at every stop and no-one gets on/off at half of 'em

Not really a good idea for trains, then they'll either have to go slower or run ahead of schedule.

[SBD]

Pedestrian access is still a problem for many stations in Adelaide. This discussion about North Adelaide is one example. The thing is, it's very inexpensive to solve compared to other infrastructure projects. There are plans to remove level crossings from Adelaide, but few talk about grade separation of pedestrians. The thing is, grade separation of little pedestrians is far far far cheaper than grade separation of railways and roads and it directly leads to higher public transport usage.

We need more subways in Adelaide. More pedestrian subways, that is.

I know of no way that trying to make heavy rail act as if it were a tram (ie short station distances between stops) can ever be either economic, or entice drivers from cars.

That has little to do with the trams and has more to do with the fact that you want short stop spacing. A tram/train/bus that stops frequently is always going to be slow. All modes can be built to accelerate just as fast as one another. Many overseas metros accelerate much faster than Adelaide's trains. I see no reason why they can't fit more powerful motors to the new EMUs and make them accelerate and brake harder.

Property development and transport planning should be complementary, but they're not in Adelaide. For all of the metro railway stations, every 200 m from the station should be zoned to allow medium density residential.

Well, yes, you can put in bigger motors in big vehicles. That doesn't change the fact that you can do the exact same job with a smaller and cheaper vehicle.

Nobody disputes you can do it, the question is why should the taxpayer pay extra to achieve the same outcome?

So for the less-informed amongst us (I may not be the only one), what is the defining difference between a train/heavy rail EMU and a tram/light rail running in a dedicated corridor? Both have steel wheels, steel tracks and electric motors fed by overhead power lines. None of Adelaide's metropolitan railways share track with other trains any more. Most of our tram tracks are in dedicated corridors.

Is the difference the signalling and control systems? Does one have better safety systems than the other?

[SBD]

bring in request stops

nothing worse than stopping at every stop and no-one gets on/off at half of 'em

Not really a good idea for trains, then they'll either have to go slower or run ahead of schedule.

The scheduling issues would be the same for trains, trams or buses. Most bus timetables don't list every potential stop, and are designed with an average number of stops in between, without specifying which ones.

Before the metro train stopped running to Bridgewater, the conductor often came through the evening outbound trains after Belair, and asked the remaining passengers which stations we wanted, so it didn't need to stop at the rest.