News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[PD2/20]

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)


...

The total $615m cost of Gawler electrification includes the cost of the new trains (now reduced to 12 in number). The Gawler service will also utilise the surplus of 4-5 trains that were ordered when Seaford was electrified in anticipation of the subsequently deferred Gawler project. The Gawler route is over 40kms long whereas OH is only 20kms. OH and Grange would require around 8 additional trains (based on existing service frequencies).

[SBD]

Looking at the rolling stock in that example, would 20x Flexity 2 trams have the capacity of 12-15x Bombardier train sets to get a ship load of tourists in and out of Outer Harbor when a cruise arrives (I expect they will eventually restart operations)? Infrastructure needs to be built for the surge demand, as well as for the average.

Also, did the conversion cost include the new tram barn and servicing capacity for the new trams? I understand the current facility is full, where as there is capacity for (new) train storage and maintenance where the old trains are currently done.

I heard someone on the radio a few days ago assert that the maximum train length on the Gawler Line is only 3x 3000-class railcars. I'm sure it used to handle 6x 2000-class at times, so I assume that the 3x limit relates to the length of some smaller station platforms and a current expectation that all train doors must be accessible to the platform at every station. Long trains used to only serve some stations, and/or only certain doors were suitable at smaller platforms. What are the platform length limits on the Outer Harbor line?

[PD2/20]

That's what I'd expect, but I recall a post here saying that the bridge was too low for electrics to pass under.

I did wonder about this claim about clearance under the Park Terrace overpass. The overpass dates from the 1990's quite a few years after the Emerson overpass, where the Seaford electrification proceeded without problem. Also the King St bridge in Gawler has been the subject of considerable discussion and site investigation over at leasst the last year because of its well publicised clearance limitation. If there had been an issue at Park Terrace I am sure that there would have been remedial trackworks by now considering the trackwork that was carried out elsewhere last month as part of the electrification. Steel masts have now been erected immediately adjacent to the bridge. The height of these masts is only slightly greater than the underside of the bridge so it looks as if the overhead will be accomodated without problem under the bridge.

[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

$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)


...

The total $615m cost of Gawler electrification includes the cost of the new trains (now reduced to 12 in number). The Gawler service will also utilise the surplus of 4-5 trains that were ordered when Seaford was electrified in anticipation of the subsequently deferred Gawler project. The Gawler route is over 40kms long whereas OH is only 20kms. OH and Grange would require around 8 additional trains (based on existing service frequencies).

SBD wrote

Looking at the rolling stock in that example, would 20x Flexity 2 trams have the capacity of 12-15x Bombardier train sets to get a ship load of tourists in and out of Outer Harbor when a cruise arrives (I expect they will eventually restart operations)? Infrastructure needs to be built for the surge demand, as well as for the average.

Also, did the conversion cost include the new tram barn and servicing capacity for the new trams? I understand the current facility is full, where as there is capacity for (new) train storage and maintenance where the old trains are currently done.

I heard someone on the radio a few days ago assert that the maximum train length on the Gawler Line is only 3x 3000-class railcars. I'm sure it used to handle 6x 2000-class at times, so I assume that the 3x limit relates to the length of some smaller station platforms and a current expectation that all train doors must be accessible to the platform at every station. Long trains used to only serve some stations, and/or only certain doors were suitable at smaller platforms. What are the platform length limits on the Outer Harbor line?

Thank you both for providing more detailed information. On that basis of this new information I will re-edit my original post.

[PD2/20]

Looking at the rolling stock in that example, would 20x Flexity 2 trams have the capacity of 12-15x Bombardier train sets to get a ship load of tourists in and out of Outer Harbor when a cruise arrives (I expect they will eventually restart operations)? Infrastructure needs to be built for the surge demand, as well as for the average.

Also, did the conversion cost include the new tram barn and servicing capacity for the new trams? I understand the current facility is full, where as there is capacity for (new) train storage and maintenance where the old trains are currently done.

I heard someone on the radio a few days ago assert that the maximum train length on the Gawler Line is only 3x 3000-class railcars. I'm sure it used to handle 6x 2000-class at times, so I assume that the 3x limit relates to the length of some smaller station platforms and a current expectation that all train doors must be accessible to the platform at every station. Long trains used to only serve some stations, and/or only certain doors were suitable at smaller platforms. What are the platform length limits on the Outer Harbor line?

Offpeak trains to OH are often lengthed from 2 to 3 cars offpeak for cruise traffic.

Currently 3 cars are the longest formations in service on the Gawler line. There used to be some 4 car 2000 workings.

DPTI standards for platform lengths state 160m for major stations on and the outer portion of the Seaford line, which allows 6 cars. Everywhere else only 110-120m is required which imposes a 4 car restriction. Mawson Lakes and the now replaced Oaklands were only 110-120m, having been contructed in 2006-8 when maximum train lengths were 4 cars.

[TorrensSA]

$175M is buying 15 x 3 carriage trains - seating capacity of 240 each and $120M buys you 20 x trams at a seating capacity of 64 each. You want to run an Outer Harbor tram line and add spurs to West Lakes and Semaphore and only buy 20 trams. Grange and Outer Harbor run a combined 8 trains an hour in peak direction thats 16 x 3000 class railcars at 2500 people an hour, that it self is 24 trams. Peak direction Grange and West Lakes 10 trams, Semaphore and Outer Harbor 18 trams. Then you would need a tram every 15 min to each of the four locations interpeak. Probably need 45 trams for the four lines. Trams aren't big enough. Your 20 trams would be pathetic, like seriously you're looking at a 20 to 30 min frequency on every line, I'm sure the people on the Outer Harbor line who get 6 trains an hour in peak would love to be shoved into 6 trams and would you really bother building a line to Semaphore and West Lakes if your going to have trams every 30 mins? If you exclude the West Lakes line 16 trams is actually less capacity than the 8 trains we have now, so we would need 4 more trams Grange would technically need 1.5 more, to match capacity we can get rid of that tram so we need 3 more, add them to Semaphore - so Port Adelaide would see 15 tram (carriages) an hour, still not enough actually a 2 carriage 3000 class train seats 220 people, 6 of them is 1320 that equals roughly 20 trams (Flexity tram 64 seats x 20= 1280). One two carriage train is therefore about 3 trams. Final numbers 18 tram carriages to Glanville / OH and 6 to Grange would have the same capacity as we have now, 24 trams. To create a West Lakes line we can use 2 of the Grange trams and add another 4.

[claybro]

The whole heavy v light rail is now kind of irrelevant in regard to the Northwest corridor anyway. It's dead. We MIGHT see the main line electrified in the next decade, but that's about it. I would expect at that time Grange will be closed as there is no way it could be cost effective for 4 barely used stations traversing a golf course. Seems a shame, when the Glenelg tram has been such a success increasing patronage since its upgrade despite the rediculous speed and running restrictions in place. I doubt just electrifying OH in its existing state will have the same impact of increasing patronage.

[SBD]

The whole heavy v light rail is now kind of irrelevant in regard to the Northwest corridor anyway. It's dead. We MIGHT see the main line electrified in the next decade, but that's about it. I would expect at that time Grange will be closed as there is no way it could be cost effective for 4 barely used stations traversing a golf course. Seems a shame, when the Glenelg tram has been such a success increasing patronage since its upgrade despite the rediculous speed and running restrictions in place. I doubt just electrifying OH in its existing state will have the same impact of increasing patronage.

3000-class have recently undergone life-of-type extension upgrades. They will also have less work once the Gawler line is electrified. By the time they are due for replacement, there will be cost savings in going to an all-electric fleet by closing or electrifying both the Belair and Grange/Outer Harbor lines. If a tunnel is built through the CBD, it is likely to not be ventilated for diesel trains, so electric would be required to run Belair and OH trains through it. That's cost and utility reasons to electrify it eventually, without needing to increase the patronage as well.

[rubberman]

The whole heavy v light rail is now kind of irrelevant in regard to the Northwest corridor anyway. It's dead. We MIGHT see the main line electrified in the next decade, but that's about it. I would expect at that time Grange will be closed as there is no way it could be cost effective for 4 barely used stations traversing a golf course. Seems a shame, when the Glenelg tram has been such a success increasing patronage since its upgrade despite the rediculous speed and running restrictions in place. I doubt just electrifying OH in its existing state will have the same impact of increasing patronage.

The only way the Grange line can survive is if the tram to Henley goes ahead. That line could then extend to Woodville over the existing Grange right of way. So, City to Woodville via Henley and Grange. This would have the advantage that passengers along the tramline could choose the best route to their final destination, be that to the city or elsewhere. Rather than having to go through the city, someone at Lockleys wanting to go to Bowden might decide that the tram is a better option.

Of course, if the tram system isn't extended...bye bye Grange line eventually.

[rubberman]

$175M is buying 15 x 3 carriage trains - seating capacity of 240 each and $120M buys you 20 x trams at a seating capacity of 64 each. You want to run an Outer Harbor tram line and add spurs to West Lakes and Semaphore and only buy 20 trams. Grange and Outer Harbor run a combined 8 trains an hour in peak direction thats 16 x 3000 class railcars at 2500 people an hour, that it self is 24 trams. Peak direction Grange and West Lakes 10 trams, Semaphore and Outer Harbor 18 trams. Then you would need a tram every 15 min to each of the four locations interpeak. Probably need 45 trams for the four lines. Trams aren't big enough. Your 20 trams would be pathetic, like seriously you're looking at a 20 to 30 min frequency on every line, I'm sure the people on the Outer Harbor line who get 6 trains an hour in peak would love to be shoved into 6 trams and would you really bother building a line to Semaphore and West Lakes if your going to have trams every 30 mins? If you exclude the West Lakes line 16 trams is actually less capacity than the 8 trains we have now, so we would need 4 more trams Grange would technically need 1.5 more, to match capacity we can get rid of that tram so we need 3 more, add them to Semaphore - so Port Adelaide would see 15 tram (carriages) an hour, still not enough actually a 2 carriage 3000 class train seats 220 people, 6 of them is 1320 that equals roughly 20 trams (Flexity tram 64 seats x 20= 1280). One two carriage train is therefore about 3 trams. Final numbers 18 tram carriages to Glanville / OH and 6 to Grange would have the same capacity as we have now, 24 trams. To create a West Lakes line we can use 2 of the Grange trams and add another 4.

I'm not sure how realistic it is to say you can buy a much heavier, faster and higher voltage heavy rail vehicle for $3.8m, while a much lighter tram costs $6m. The only way that happens is if the government is caught short and has zero choice (as for the first Citadises) or wants to buy jobs (as for the Melbourne flexities), or it includes a heavy maintenance package. It's got to be one of those.

As for tram vs train capacities, sure trains have a higher capacity. However, on both the Hills and Outer Harbor lines, that capacity is grossly underutilised. Naturally, if heavy rail was running at capacity, we wouldn't be even considering trams. The whole point is that heavy rail is NOT working at capacity, nor will it unless it can attract more passengers, and it won't attract more passengers...because it's too slow. It will always be too slow while existing station spacings remain.

So, while people insist on maintaining existing station spacings, the trains will remain slow, and not increase patronage, meaning trams can do the job.

I really don't care one way or another, I just see that there's no benefit in heavy rail that's oversized for the job it's being asked to do.

[PeFe]

So, while people insist on maintaining existing station spacings, the trains will remain slow, and not increase patronage, meaning trams can do the job.

I really don't care one way or another, I just see that there's no benefit in heavy rail that's oversized for the job it's being asked to do.

I just sourced travel times from the Adelaide Metro website :

Heavy Rail : ARS to Port Adelaide, 11.7 kms, 22 minutes (all stops service)

Tram : Rundle Mall to Glenelg, 11.6 kms, 37 minutes (all stops)

[claybro]

[quote=rubberman post_id=191948 time=<a href="tel:1590018709">1590018709</a> user_id=1288]
So, while people insist on maintaining existing station spacings, the trains will remain slow, and not increase patronage, meaning trams can do the job.

I really don't care one way or another, I just see that there's no benefit in heavy rail that's oversized for the job it's being asked to do.

I just sourced travel times from the Adelaide Metro website :

Heavy Rail : ARS to Port Adelaide, 11.7 kms, 22 minutes (all stops service)

Tram : Rundle Mall to Glenelg, 11.6 kms, 37 minutes (all stops)
[/quote]

Again not a fair comparison, because the train does not enter the CBD, it stops on the edge forcing its Users's to either walk or take the tram anyway. Distance the same, conditions vastly different. Like Rubberman though I don't really care, because the heavy rail fans got what they wished for... maybe in 10 years an electrified version of what already exists, and struggles to attract passenger numbers outside of peak and football days.

[mattwinter]

Surely the biggest factor that would increase usage would be building a CBD underground... if they're planning to do that in the next 30 years and planning to include links for the OH and Belair lines, then converting them to trams doesn't make any sense....

[PeFe]

Again not a fair comparison, because the train does not enter the CBD, it stops on the edge forcing its Users's to either walk or take the tram anyway.

What????? The Adelaide Railway Station is not in the CBD.....Not in my definition of "central business district/city centre".

You walk north from the train station for sports and entertainment, you walk west from the train station for medical and education facilities, you walk east from the train station for major shopping, you walk east and south east for major office blocks....

Just because the train doesn't stop in the middle of Rundle Mall, that doesn't make it non central....the tram doesnt stop at Hindmarsh Square but does that make the tram non-CBD.

Even in the best public transport cities in the world you have to walk.....it is impossible to have great public transport to every office block's front entrance.

If the Adelaide Railway station is not in the CBD, then neither is the Perth Railway Station ( because you have to walk to St Georges Terrace to your office) and neither is Flinders Street Station in Melbourne, because you have to walk to Collins Street or Bourke Street to your office.

[Patrick_27]

The whole heavy v light rail is now kind of irrelevant in regard to the Northwest corridor anyway. It's dead. We MIGHT see the main line electrified in the next decade, but that's about it. I would expect at that time Grange will be closed as there is no way it could be cost effective for 4 barely used stations traversing a golf course. Seems a shame, when the Glenelg tram has been such a success increasing patronage since its upgrade despite the rediculous speed and running restrictions in place. I doubt just electrifying OH in its existing state will have the same impact of increasing patronage.

3000-class have recently undergone life-of-type extension upgrades. They will also have less work once the Gawler line is electrified. By the time they are due for replacement, there will be cost savings in going to an all-electric fleet by closing or electrifying both the Belair and Grange/Outer Harbor lines. If a tunnel is built through the CBD, it is likely to not be ventilated for diesel trains, so electric would be required to run Belair and OH trains through it. That's cost and utility reasons to electrify it eventually, without needing to increase the patronage as well.

As far as I'm concerned, I want to see the remainder of the train network electrified before a CBD tunnel is even considered. If our state government can't get serious about electrifying the whole network, I don't see them ever getting serious about a CBD tunnel.