News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[1NEEDS2POST]

Adelaide is already the last remaining capital without an underground CBD link. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane have had them for decades, and Perth for a decade now. But yes, it is a critical missing link.

Yes it is a critical link, but...it has to be planned and done well, not hurried. It has to be part of an expanded network that looks 20, 30 and 50 years into the future.

Cheers

I guess it all depends when you start counting from:

• 1916 mention in the Legislative Council of East-west line
• 1924 daydream of the future city loop
• 1930 linking Port Adelaide and Glenelg lines under King William Street
• 1949 Submission to royal commission, again linking Glenelg to the Outer Harbor and Henley Beach lines as part of their electrification.

The 1930 article is interesting in that it suggests a tramway conversion of the Port Adelaide line. It's essentially the AdeLINK plan, but 80 years prior!

The thing about light rail conversion is that it would mean the underground section uses smaller tunnels. Making it cheaper = more chance of it getting done.

Modern trams like Citadis can be fitted with ground level power supply (essentially a third rail between the tracks.) This further reduces the size of the tunnel.

As a further way of reducing costs, the entire thing (both tracks and platforms) can be built inside one large TBM.

For many underground railways built today, the majority of the construction cost is in the stations. This is because stations must be constructed using conventional techniques, whereas the tunnels are often constructed using TBMs.

A recent development is large diameter TBMs. Barcelona's line 9 is under construction with an 11.95 m diameter TBM. Not only can both tracks can fit in the one tunnel, but also the stations themselves can be built inside the TBM's tunnel!

I think this should be explored for an Adelaide CBD tunnel. Excavating the stations under the CBD with conventional techniques looks more expensive than just one large TBM.

Thinking for the far future, once the TBM is finished with the CBD tunnel, it could be used to bore a Mt Lofty Base Tunnel. The TBM's tunnel will be large enough to fit double stacked trains through.

http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/10/barcelon ... pink-line/


http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/10/barcelon ... pink-line/

[Spotto]

The thing about light rail conversion is that it would mean the underground section uses smaller tunnels. Making it cheaper = more chance of it getting done.

Modern trams like Citadis can be fitted with ground level power supply (essentially a third rail between the tracks.) This further reduces the size of the tunnel.

Though a tram tunnel could end up being appropriate for another use in the (much) more distant future, the city rail link needs to be for the Gawler and Seaford lines and it therefore needs to be heavy rail. Unless you’re suggesting that Adelaide’s two trunk rail lines, recently electric-converted (Seaford 2014, Gawler 2020), should be turned into trams, in this specific case it won’t work.

[rubberman]

The thing about light rail conversion is that it would mean the underground section uses smaller tunnels. Making it cheaper = more chance of it getting done.

Modern trams like Citadis can be fitted with ground level power supply (essentially a third rail between the tracks.) This further reduces the size of the tunnel.

Though a tram tunnel could end up being appropriate for another use in the (much) more distant future, the city rail link needs to be for the Gawler and Seaford lines and it therefore needs to be heavy rail. Unless you’re suggesting that Adelaide’s two trunk rail lines, recently electric-converted (Seaford 2014, Gawler 2020), should be turned into trams, in this specific case it won’t work.

Every time it's been looked at, it's been concluded that it's hopelessly uneconomic.

Either we keep repeating the exercise, and keep coming up with the same answer...a tunnel project shelved, or we try for something cheaper.

Having said that, there's no harm in dreaming.

I'm not sure why a light rail conversion of the Outer Harbor and Belair lines through a tunnel in the city wouldn't work. If there was light rail from Grange, West Lakes, Largs, Semaphore, the Port via Port Dock and beyond, plus transfers from Gawler and Seaford heavy rail, a tunnel MIGHT be economic. A larger heavy rail without those other feeds? Maybe in 2050...or later.

[1NEEDS2POST]

The thing about light rail conversion is that it would mean the underground section uses smaller tunnels. Making it cheaper = more chance of it getting done.

Modern trams like Citadis can be fitted with ground level power supply (essentially a third rail between the tracks.) This further reduces the size of the tunnel.

Though a tram tunnel could end up being appropriate for another use in the (much) more distant future, the city rail link needs to be for the Gawler and Seaford lines and it therefore needs to be heavy rail. Unless you’re suggesting that Adelaide’s two trunk rail lines, recently electric-converted (Seaford 2014, Gawler 2020), should be turned into trams, in this specific case it won’t work.

That leaves Outer Harbor and Belair without a city tunnel. The article mentioned linking the Port Adelaide line with the Glenelg tram, which is a good idea.

Alternatively, we could have a tunnel connecting Gawler and Seaford, but for Outer Harbor, convert to light rail and connect with Glenelg on the surface in King William Street. Belair would enter the tunnel where Gawler enters and then continue to Flinders.

So we'd have three routes:
Gawler -> Seaford via tunnel
Belair - > Flinders via tunnel
Outer Harbor (light rail conversion) -> Glenelg via King William Street

[rubberman]

Here's something of interest. A group of German and Austrian rail operators have put out tenders for combined tram/trains.

Such vehicles might suit Adelaide. Especially in light of the current discussions on conversion of the Outer Harbor and Belair lines and tunnelling.

https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/tende ... -launched/

[ChillyPhilly]

Converting the Outer Harbor line won't happen after the Torrens Junction project.

[rubberman]

Converting the Outer Harbor line won't happen after the Torrens Junction project.

Why not? If anything, it makes conversion easier. Previously the light rail would have had to cross the Gawler and standard gauge track...tricky. Now it doesn't.

Really, that is a plus for light rail conversion.

[Westside]

Converting the Outer Harbor line won't happen after the Torrens Junction project.

Why not? The junction was designed to cater for both scenarios. If it does get converted, then the line will join the road at War Memorial Dr and connect to King William Rd in front of Adelaide Oval.

Light rail in tunnels won't ever and should never happen. They work much better at street level where they are visible at street level and do not add often several minutes to the trip. Any line that is converted to light rail will be able to get to the heart of the city with the existing track (which already has its own right-of-way). They just need to add in prioritisation at traffic lights to speed up the travel time through the city. A tunnel should only be used for heavy rail where street running is not an option.

[rubberman]

Converting the Outer Harbor line won't happen after the Torrens Junction project.

Why not? The junction was designed to cater for both scenarios. If it does get converted, then the line will join the road at War Memorial Dr and connect to King William Rd in front of Adelaide Oval.

Light rail in tunnels won't ever and should never happen. They work much better at street level where they are visible at street level and do not add often several minutes to the trip. Any line that is converted to light rail will be able to get to the heart of the city with the existing track (which already has its own right-of-way). They just need to add in prioritisation at traffic lights to speed up the travel time through the city. A tunnel should only be used for heavy rail where street running is not an option.

Is there a reason why a tunnel should only be used for heavy rail? I would have thought it a matter of economics and passenger numbers.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I've never heard of it before. Plus, of course, if it's true, then we will be waiting another century for passenger numbers ever to justify the expense. Heavy rail in Adelaide simply doesn't run fast enough to entice people out of cars. A tunnel would open up the city access, but in no way speeds the system up enough to attract people from cars.

By all means, people can dream. I've been guilty of that, lol. But realistically there's got to be a semblance of an economic case to get past dreaming this side of 2120. A tram tunnel might do it. Heavy rail? Let's see the figures.

[PeFe]

Light rail in tunnels won't ever and should never happen.

Absolute rubbish.....plenty of cities around the world want to get their trams/light rail vehicles off the surface of crowded city streets to speed up the service.
Here's a Wikipedia article to explain it in simple terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premetro

And Los Angeles is building a really big expensive one...A$2.4 billion.

https://www.metro.net/projects/connector/

[SBD]

Heavy rail in Adelaide simply doesn't run fast enough to entice people out of cars. A tunnel would open up the city access, but in no way speeds the system up enough to attract people from cars.

I know someone who commutes (near-daily before COVID) from Eden Hills to Elizabeth South, and someone else who commutes (roughly once a week) Smithfield-Clarence Park.

If the lines were electrified and through-running, I'm pretty sure there would be time savings compared to the current system.

The "city" station would be spread out from just the current Adelaide Station to all of the city stops, which might also increase patronage over time.

[Eurostar]

Heavy rail in Adelaide simply doesn't run fast enough to entice people out of cars. A tunnel would open up the city access, but in no way speeds the system up enough to attract people from cars.

I know someone who commutes (near-daily before COVID) from Eden Hills to Elizabeth South, and someone else who commutes (roughly once a week) Smithfield-Clarence Park.

If the lines were electrified and through-running, I'm pretty sure there would be time savings compared to the current system.

The "city" station would be spread out from just the current Adelaide Station to all of the city stops, which might also increase patronage over time.

It might just activate areas Victoria Square and Central Market area outside the 9 to 5

[Westside]

Light rail in tunnels won't ever and should never happen.

Absolute rubbish.....plenty of cities around the world want to get their trams/light rail vehicles off the surface of crowded city streets to speed up the service.
Here's a Wikipedia article to explain it in simple terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premetro

And Los Angeles is building a really big expensive one...A$2.4 billion.

https://www.metro.net/projects/connector/

Oh, I definitely understand that. But modern light rail (not a metro with light vehicles), is designed to be visible and integrate with city streets. It's starting to be seen as part of an integrated active transit, including walking and cycling. Adelaide has a light-rail right-of-way at surface level that is underutilised and can provide much faster travel times with prioritised light sequencing.

The pre-metro, as the name suggests, is a pre-curser to a full metro system, which delivers (and requires) significantly greater passenger numbers, the likes that will not be seen in Adelaide for the foreseeable future).

What I'm saying is the light rail lines should stay at the surface to encourage lots of short, quick trips, and the heavy rail lines should be the ones to be put into the tunnel to be off the streets, but deliver passengers across a much greater footprint within the Adelaide CBD. And I believe a short tunnel (compared to Sydney and Melbourne's metro loops) will be hugely beneficial to the city now, so we need to start planning now, so that it's shovel ready within the next few years.

[Patrick_27]

I don't know why you're all arguing about this, it's never going to happen anyway. There will be a Grange line closure before we ever see electrification of the OH line, let alone a tram/train arrangement.

[PeFe]

Oh, I definitely understand that. But modern light rail (not a metro with light vehicles), is designed to be visible and integrate with city streets. It's starting to be seen as part of an integrated active transit, including walking and cycling. Adelaide has a light-rail right-of-way at surface level that is underutilised and can provide much faster travel times with prioritised light sequencing.

The pre-metro, as the name suggests, is a pre-curser to a full metro system, which delivers (and requires) significantly greater passenger numbers, the likes that will not be seen in Adelaide for the foreseeable future).

Do you understand?? The German cities with underground tunnels for their light/rail/tram systems are not necessarily going to turn their systems into full-blown metros....they are basically large tram systems with some underground tunnels in the congested city centres and will stay that way for the forseeable future.

What I'm saying is the light rail lines should stay at the surface to encourage lots of short, quick trips, and the heavy rail lines should be the ones to be put into the tunnel to be off the streets, but deliver passengers across a much greater footprint within the Adelaide CBD.

Staying on the surface always means competing with traffic, buses can do just as good enough job in a low density city like Adelaide and at a way cheaper cost.

Patrick_27 wrote

I don't know why you're all arguing about this, it's never going to happen anyway. There will be a Grange line closure before we ever see electrification of the OH line, let alone a tram/train arrangement.

Fair call, all this stuff should be in the Visions/Suggestions/Total Fantasies I Am Having Today Forum