News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[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.



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?

In Adelaide, railcars are much heavier than trams. That means they are more expensive to build and to accelerate and brake.

Railcars can travel at higher speeds, and can be coupled together in long trains. However, those are only advantages if stations are far enough apart and there's a high passenger load.

So, for example, a tram and a train going between stops one km apart might each get up to 70kph before they have to brake for the stop. So, each can do the job equally, but the train costs more to build...for doing the same job. The train also sonsumes more energy because it has to accelerate a greater mass. Thus, unless the passenger load is greater than a tram can handle, a tram is cheaper and more energy efficient at smaller station spacings. Trams/light rail wins.

HOWEVER, if we make the stations 5km apart, everything changes. The heavy rail vehicle can achieve 100kph before starting to brake, while the tram tops out at 70kph. So, as the tram putters into the station, the heavy rail is loaded and away under this scenario. Heavy rail wins.

So, it's horses for courses.

In addition, heavy rail has more stringent safety distances needed than trams. Trams have much shorter emergency stopping distances because of the magnetic track brakes and slower design speeds. That means heavy rail requires extra signalling that is simply unnecessary for trams/light rail.

[SRW]

So, for example, a tram and a train going between stops one km apart might each get up to 70kph before they have to brake for the stop. So, each can do the job equally, but the train costs more to build...for doing the same job. The train also sonsumes more energy because it has to accelerate a greater mass. Thus, unless the passenger load is greater than a tram can handle, a tram is cheaper and more energy efficient at smaller station spacings. Trams/light rail wins.

Wouldn't these be minor costs compared to the expense of converting the system from heavy to light? It seems like you're describing the ideal application, but we're not starting from scratch here. We have a legacy system with its own idiosyncracies.

[rubberman]

So, for example, a tram and a train going between stops one km apart might each get up to 70kph before they have to brake for the stop. So, each can do the job equally, but the train costs more to build...for doing the same job. The train also sonsumes more energy because it has to accelerate a greater mass. Thus, unless the passenger load is greater than a tram can handle, a tram is cheaper and more energy efficient at smaller station spacings. Trams/light rail wins.

Wouldn't these be minor costs compared to the expense of converting the system from heavy to light? It seems like you're describing the ideal application, but we're not starting from scratch here. We have a legacy system with its own idiosyncracies.

The expense of changing over si not that high...IF it's done at the time when the diesel railcars are at the end of their financial life.

At that point, the cost of new rail cars vs new trams is a lot. Further, if it was going to be electrified, the cost of 600 volt trams vs 25000 volt train infrastructure is also cheaper.

The costs of conversion would be the cost of shifting one rail, plus the cost of new lowered platforms and demolishing the old ones.

I think there'd be a lot of money left over. Which could be put toward extensions to say Largs, or Semaphore or extending the Grange line to Henley Square, or past Port Dock...as examples.

[claybro]

So, for example, a tram and a train going between stops one km apart might each get up to 70kph before they have to brake for the stop. So, each can do the job equally, but the train costs more to build...for doing the same job. The train also sonsumes more energy because it has to accelerate a greater mass. Thus, unless the passenger load is greater than a tram can handle, a tram is cheaper and more energy efficient at smaller station spacings. Trams/light rail wins.

Wouldn't these be minor costs compared to the expense of converting the system from heavy to light? It seems like you're describing the ideal application, but we're not starting from scratch here. We have a legacy system with its own idiosyncracies.

The expense of changing over si not that high...IF it's done at the time when the diesel railcars are at the end of their financial life.

At that point, the cost of new rail cars vs new trams is a lot. Further, if it was going to be electrified, the cost of 600 volt trams vs 25000 volt train infrastructure is also cheaper.

The costs of conversion would be the cost of shifting one rail, plus the cost of new lowered platforms and demolishing the old ones.

I think there'd be a lot of money left over. Which could be put toward extensions to say Largs, or Semaphore or extending the Grange line to Henley Square, or past Port Dock...as examples.

Aside from the cost considerations, I think the main benefit of light rail is that it is able to service the multiple destinations. Electrify the existing heavy rail line, at great expense, and you only end up with newer rail cars, on the same line. No real advantage in speed despite all the money spent. Light rail can service Grange, West Lakes, Semaphore as mentioned and studied previously. If capacity is an issue for OH... then trams can also be coupled, and frequency would be far higher from Woodville. OH has never been considered as part of a proposed city tunnel, so presumably any heavy rail conversion would still terminate at North Terrace fore the foreseeable future anyway.

[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.

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.

Yup, and buses will frequently pull over and stop at the side of the road for a couple of minutes if they are running ahead of schedule. Calling for stops on buses allows more frequent bus stops and also avoids disruption to traffic flows.

[Norman]

Wouldn't these be minor costs compared to the expense of converting the system from heavy to light? It seems like you're describing the ideal application, but we're not starting from scratch here. We have a legacy system with its own idiosyncracies.

The expense of changing over si not that high...IF it's done at the time when the diesel railcars are at the end of their financial life.

At that point, the cost of new rail cars vs new trams is a lot. Further, if it was going to be electrified, the cost of 600 volt trams vs 25000 volt train infrastructure is also cheaper.

The costs of conversion would be the cost of shifting one rail, plus the cost of new lowered platforms and demolishing the old ones.

I think there'd be a lot of money left over. Which could be put toward extensions to say Largs, or Semaphore or extending the Grange line to Henley Square, or past Port Dock...as examples.

Aside from the cost considerations, I think the main benefit of light rail is that it is able to service the multiple destinations. Electrify the existing heavy rail line, at great expense, and you only end up with newer rail cars, on the same line. No real advantage in speed despite all the money spent. Light rail can service Grange, West Lakes, Semaphore as mentioned and studied previously. If capacity is an issue for OH... then trams can also be coupled, and frequency would be far higher from Woodville. OH has never been considered as part of a proposed city tunnel, so presumably any heavy rail conversion would still terminate at North Terrace fore the foreseeable future anyway.

Since you live in Perth, would you support the Fremantle Line being converted to light rail?

[claybro]

[quote=rubberman post_id=191920 time=<a href="tel:1589874964">1589874964</a> user_id=1288]
[quote=SRW post_id=191918 time=<a href="tel:1589866566">1589866566</a> user_id=1217]


Wouldn't these be minor costs compared to the expense of converting the system from heavy to light? It seems like you're describing the ideal application, but we're not starting from scratch here. We have a legacy system with its own idiosyncracies.

The expense of changing over si not that high...IF it's done at the time when the diesel railcars are at the end of their financial life.

At that point, the cost of new rail cars vs new trams is a lot. Further, if it was going to be electrified, the cost of 600 volt trams vs 25000 volt train infrastructure is also cheaper.

The costs of conversion would be the cost of shifting one rail, plus the cost of new lowered platforms and demolishing the old ones.

I think there'd be a lot of money left over. Which could be put toward extensions to say Largs, or Semaphore or extending the Grange line to Henley Square, or past Port Dock...as examples.

Aside from the cost considerations, I think the main benefit of light rail is that it is able to service the multiple destinations. Electrify the existing heavy rail line, at great expense, and you only end up with newer rail cars, on the same line. No real advantage in speed despite all the money spent. Light rail can service Grange, West Lakes, Semaphore as mentioned and studied previously. If capacity is an issue for OH... then trams can also be coupled, and frequency would be far higher from Woodville. OH has never been considered as part of a proposed city tunnel, so presumably any heavy rail conversion would still terminate at North Terrace fore the foreseeable future anyway.

[/quote]Since you live in Perth, would you support the Fremantle Line being converted to light rail?
[/quote]

No.- Why?
1. The Fremantle line does not terminate at Perth station. Perth station is a through station not a terminus, so trains from Fremantle continue on through the station to become the Midland line. Midland is not suitable as Light rail. There is no plan in Adelaide or even concept to connect OH to Belair.
2. Fremantle line does not have multiple possible branch destinations nearby, it serves a narrow peninsula of suburbs between the river and the sea, so there is limited opportunity for branch lines to high density hubs, unlike OH line which can have street running branches to multiple destinations as previously mentioned.
3. Fremantle line serves the showgrounds, and even before the huge developement of apartments around Claremont, it ran in 4 car sets, and is nearly always busy even on weekends, with Fremantle itself being a busy terminus. The end of the OH line is and always will be low density past Glanville. Any perceived lack of capacity by changing OH to light rail will be made up by trams from multiple destinations significantly increasing frequency/ capacity after Woodville.

[Norman]

Since you live in Perth, would you support the Fremantle Line being converted to light rail?

No.- Why?
1. The Fremantle line does not terminate at Perth station. Perth station is a through station not a terminus, so trains from Fremantle continue on through the station to become the Midland line. Midland is not suitable as Light rail. There is no plan in Adelaide or even concept to connect OH to Belair.
2. Fremantle line does not have multiple possible branch destinations nearby, it serves a narrow peninsula of suburbs between the river and the sea, so there is limited opportunity for branch lines to high density hubs, unlike OH line which can have street running branches to multiple destinations as previously mentioned.
3. Fremantle line serves the showgrounds, and even before the huge developement of apartments around Claremont, it ran in 4 car sets, and is nearly always busy even on weekends, with Fremantle itself being a busy terminus. The end of the OH line is and always will be low density past Glanville. Any perceived lack of capacity by changing OH to light rail will be made up by trams from multiple destinations significantly increasing frequency/ capacity after Woodville.

Fair enough. I would still think the Outer Harbor line can be linked to the Flinders line, but it really depends on what a cost/benefit analysis would be for an underground CBD link.

I also believe that the density around the Outer Harbor line has a lot of potential to be increased as there are big industrial sites around the existing stations that could be converted into high density mixed use developments.

I am a firm believer in using the infrastructure we have now to drive changes in land use planning, rather than letting current land use dictate infrastructure, as this puts the onus back on the developers and their money in the private sector to drive change in our city.

But, of course, that's just my opinion.

[PeFe]

Why cant the Belair line be included in the city tunnel? (provided it can be electrified)

Trains could run around the loop and out again, it doesn't have to be a "through" service.

[claybro]

Fair enough. I would still think the Outer Harbor line can be linked to the Flinders line, but it really depends on what a cost/benefit analysis would be for an underground CBD link.

I also believe that the density around the Outer Harbor line has a lot of potential to be increased as there are big industrial sites around the existing stations that could be converted into high density mixed use developments.

I am a firm believer in using the infrastructure we have now to drive changes in land use planning, rather than letting current land use dictate infrastructure, as this puts the onus back on the developers and their money in the private sector to drive change in our city.

But, of course, that's just my opinion.

Norman, your question relating to a comparison with the Fremantle line was a good one, and I would be inclined to agree that an under city link with say Belair or Flinders would change the equation to favour heavy rail, but there is nothing I have read that this has ever been in consideration. Unfortunately, despite the former governments own "experts" telling them light rail was the right approach for the OH corridor, there is little appetite for light rail in Adelaide (despite the popularity of the Glenelg line) and the sudden thought bubble of the Port spur ironically by the same administration, virtually locked in heavy rail, missing the opportunity for light rail to continue along St Vincent street past the station. It may have also signed the death certificate for Grange, and we will be lucky to see even electrification of the main line completed in the next decade.

Why cant the Belair line be included in the city tunnel? (provided it can be electrified)

Trains could run around the loop and out again, it doesn't have to be a "through" service.

The experience of a loop in Melbourne has not been all good. Multiple lines converging on a single loop creates major scheduling problems in peak hour, as one train running late, and missing its "slot" has a knock on effect to the whole system. Melbourne is now avoiding this mistake with their new metro tunnel which is to be a thru tunnel thus avoiding the loop, but having transfer stations with the loop.-The cost of this project BTW is now billions over budget. Perth also has not gone down the loop path (its train system is currently remarkably similar layout to Adelaide), instead linking the N/S lines and the SW/NE lines separately, but all converging at the main Perth station at seperate levels. There is an underground walkway connecting the main station and the Perth underground N/S station. As in my reply to Norman above, I think an underground connecting tunnel would help the heavy rail equation, but as there would need to be either multi line tunnel, or seperate tunnels to create the N/S and E/S links. This is never likely to happen unless Adelaide population doubles in the next decade. Even the MATS plan called for only a N/S underground link.

[PeFe]

Here comes my guestimate of the costs of heavy rail or light rail conversion of the Outer Harbor/Grange line. All costs are guestimates from other heavy/light rail projects.

Heavy Rail

$500 million, cost of electrification of OH and Grange, based on Gawler costs

$175 million, cost of 12 new electric Bombardier trains to service the line (based on last order of trains for Gawler electrification)


Light Rail

$700 million, cost of Hoek van Holland 24 km heavy rail (Rotterdam) converted to light rail. This did involve some grade separation.

$120 million, cost of 20 new Flexity 2 trams

$450 million tram extensions to West Lakes and Semaphore (5kms), based on $90 million per kilometre. Grange is paid for under the cost of converting all heavy rail lines.

$100 million to convert 2 tracks and platforms into the Adelaide Railway station for light rail use

$100 to build new stabling yards for the 20 new trams

(These post has been edited to reflect newer information regarding costs and infrastructure facilities needed)

[PeFe]

The experience of a loop in Melbourne has not been all good. Multiple lines converging on a single loop creates major scheduling problems in peak hour, as one train running late, and missing its "slot" has a knock on effect to the whole system. Melbourne is now avoiding this mistake with their new metro tunnel which is to be a thru tunnel thus avoiding the loop, but having transfer stations with the loop.-The cost of this project BTW is now billions over budget. Perth also has not gone down the loop path (its train system is currently remarkably similar layout to Adelaide), instead linking the N/S lines and the SW/NE lines separately, but all converging at the main Perth station at seperate levels. There is an underground walkway connecting the main station and the Perth underground N/S station. As in my reply to Norman above, I think an underground connecting tunnel would help the heavy rail equation, but as there would need to be either multi line tunnel, or seperate tunnels to create the N/S and E/S links. This is never likely to happen unless Adelaide population doubles in the next decade. Even the MATS plan called for only a N/S underground link.

The underground tunnel would not be a loop, it would be a 'U' shape.The Belair line would either go north or south through the tunnel.....ie Adelaide Showground (travelling north) then Mile End, enter the tunnel into Adelaide Railway Station, then Hindmarsh Square, then Victoria Square, then Adelaide Showground travelling south.

This would effectively leave 3 train lines going south (Belair, Seaford-Gawler and Outer Harbor-Tonsley) at any time in the tunnel whilst in the other direction there would be only 2.....or Belair could run north through the tunnel. It is pointless having it run in both directions (but the capability may there for breakdowns and emergencies)

Is this technically possible? Of course it is.... the Paris RER A line runs through central Paris with 1 minute headways at peak hour servicing 4 "different" train lines ( 2 branches at each end)

[Patrick_27]

Here comes my guestimate of the costs of heavy rail or light rail conversion of the Outer Harbor/Grange line. All costs are guestimates from other heavy/light rail projects.

Heavy Rail

$615 million, cost of electrification, based on Gawler costs

$175 million, cost of 15 new electric Bombardier trains to service the line (based on last order of trains for Gawler electrification)


Light Rail

$700 million, cost of Hoek van Holland 24 km heavy rail (Rotterdam) converted to light rail. This did involve some grade separation.

$120 million, cost of 20 new Flexity 2 trams

$450 million tram extensions to West Lakes and Semaphore (5kms), based on $90 million per kilometre. Grange is paid for under the cost of converting all heavy rail lines.

$100 million to convert 2 tracks and platforms into the Adelaide Railway station for light rail use

For the record, I'm against converting heavy rail into light rail with any of our existing heavy rail lines, I've always felt we should be better utilising the lines by electrifying and creating new spur lines that best represent where the demand is (for instance, you mention West Lakes, great idea! I see more value in a line to West Lakes than keeping Grange open; Pork dock spur line is another that should be funded). But RE: converting two tracks and platforms at ARS IF light rail were to happen, I don't believe this was ever the previous government's plan, if I recall rightly from what I did see of the ADELink proposal, they wanted the tramline to jump off Outer Harbour line somewhere in the northern parklands (where they've just done the grade separation) and then come out onto Memorial Drive and connect up with the North Adelaide/Prospect line. Somewhat like what was done with the St. Kilda and Port Melbourne lines in Melbourne when they were converted to light rail, just have the trams rejoin the remainder of the tram network once they come to the end of their allocated corridor - otherwise, what's the point of the conversion if you're going to have them terminate at ARS, might as well leave the heavy rail there.

[claybro]

Here comes my guestimate of the costs of heavy rail or light rail conversion of the Outer Harbor/Grange line. All costs are guestimates from other heavy/light rail projects.

Heavy Rail

$615 million, cost of electrification, based on Gawler costs

$175 million, cost of 15 new electric Bombardier trains to service the line (based on last order of trains for Gawler electrification)


Light Rail

$700 million, cost of Hoek van Holland 24 km heavy rail (Rotterdam) converted to light rail. This did involve some grade separation.

$120 million, cost of 20 new Flexity 2 trams

$450 million tram extensions to West Lakes and Semaphore (5kms), based on $90 million per kilometre. Grange is paid for under the cost of converting all heavy rail lines.

$100 million to convert 2 tracks and platforms into the Adelaide Railway station for light rail use

Your comparisons are not the same though. To compare cost per kilometre you can not include the spur lines...just the existing line. But, using your pricing as a guide, for an extra half billon or so, your light rail system now provides single seat, rapid modern transport to 2 extra destinations, multiple extra stops, 30 percent more population covered, and with much higher frequencies on the main line. It also allows for future extensions along St Vincent Street, Grange to Henley even Arndale to the city via David Terrace.

For the record, I'm against converting heavy rail into light rail with any of our existing heavy rail lines, I've always felt we should be better utilising the lines by electrifying and creating new spur lines that best represent where the demand is (for instance, you mention West Lakes, great idea! I see more value in a line to West Lakes than keeping Grange open;

Heavy rail will not be extended to West Lakes. There is no way the voters of West Lakes will allow heavy rail running down the middle of West Lakes Boulevard let alone where to locate the terminating station.

[PD2/20]

The experience of a loop in Melbourne has not been all good. Multiple lines converging on a single loop creates major scheduling problems in peak hour, as one train running late, and missing its "slot" has a knock on effect to the whole system. Melbourne is now avoiding this mistake with their new metro tunnel which is to be a thru tunnel thus avoiding the loop, but having transfer stations with the loop.-The cost of this project BTW is now billions over budget. Perth also has not gone down the loop path (its train system is currently remarkably similar layout to Adelaide), instead linking the N/S lines and the SW/NE lines separately, but all converging at the main Perth station at seperate levels. There is an underground walkway connecting the main station and the Perth underground N/S station. As in my reply to Norman above, I think an underground connecting tunnel would help the heavy rail equation, but as there would need to be either multi line tunnel, or seperate tunnels to create the N/S and E/S links. This is never likely to happen unless Adelaide population doubles in the next decade. Even the MATS plan called for only a N/S underground link.

The underground tunnel would not be a loop, it would be a 'U' shape.The Belair line would either go north or south through the tunnel.....ie Adelaide Showground (travelling north) then Mile End, enter the tunnel into Adelaide Railway Station, then Hindmarsh Square, then Victoria Square, then Adelaide Showground travelling south.

This would effectively leave 3 train lines going south (Belair, Seaford-Gawler and Outer Harbor-Tonsley) at any time in the tunnel whilst in the other direction there would be only 2.....or Belair could run north through the tunnel. It is pointless having it run in both directions (but the capability may there for breakdowns and emergencies)

Is this technically possible? Of course it is.... the Paris RER A line runs through central Paris with 1 minute headways at peak hour servicing 4 "different" train lines ( 2 branches at each end)

The obvious configuration for a CBD underground link would be from Torrens Bridge (Gawler and OH lines) under the city to join the Seaford/Tonsley/Belair lines in the Mile End/Keswick area.

In Melbourne the City Loop is in fact 4 separate single track terminal loops, each of which is connected to a different group of lines: Clifton Hill for NE, Burnley for E, South Yarra for S and North Melbourne for N and W. One disadvantage is that to get to/from Flinders St Stn can involve travel around the complete loop or changing trains for a more direct journey https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PDFs/ ... _v1_FA.pdf.