News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[dbl96]

I think it will probably end up a combination of the worse aspects of both. Marginal if any speed improvement, some minor tinkering with stations, with maybe 1 or 2 closures if that.. and some extra car parking. Outcome ... same system with new trains and a completely wasted oportunities just like Seaford.

Yes. I know it sounds harsh, but the Outer Harbour line barely averages 35kph, and almost never gets over 60kph. Replacing it with an O-Bahn or busway would probably cut five minutes off travel time and be way less expensive. Add to that, the extra flexibility of buses being able to branch off at various points, eg to West Lakes, Largs, Semaphore, with zero extra cost, and it becomes a no-brainer. Add to that a tunnel from Adelaide Railway Station to Hindmarsh Square and the O-Bahn, and there'd be a real winner.

A better option would be light metro style rail. High-capacity, comfortable trains that are suited to short and medium distance commuting, and which can accelerate and decelerate quickly. Relatively close station placing should not be a problem with such trains (metro lines in Europe and Asia where such trains are used often have station spacing of around 1km).

Adelaide's current electric trains are not really suitable for a metropolitan network with frequent stops. They are simply too bulky and heavy - better suited for higher-speed cruising on inter-urban commuter lines. This is not surprising considering they are essentially an electric version of the V-Line VLocity designed for country Victorian lines.

[rubberman]

I think it will probably end up a combination of the worse aspects of both. Marginal if any speed improvement, some minor tinkering with stations, with maybe 1 or 2 closures if that.. and some extra car parking. Outcome ... same system with new trains and a completely wasted oportunities just like Seaford.

Yes. I know it sounds harsh, but the Outer Harbour line barely averages 35kph, and almost never gets over 60kph. Replacing it with an O-Bahn or busway would probably cut five minutes off travel time and be way less expensive. Add to that, the extra flexibility of buses being able to branch off at various points, eg to West Lakes, Largs, Semaphore, with zero extra cost, and it becomes a no-brainer. Add to that a tunnel from Adelaide Railway Station to Hindmarsh Square and the O-Bahn, and there'd be a real winner.

A better option would be light metro style rail. High-capacity, comfortable trains that are suited to short and medium distance commuting, and which can accelerate and decelerate quickly. Relatively close station placing should not be a problem with such trains (metro lines in Europe and Asia where such trains are used often have station spacing of around 1km).

Adelaide's current electric trains are not really suitable for a metropolitan network with frequent stops. They are simply too bulky and heavy - better suited for higher-speed cruising on inter-urban commuter lines. This is not surprising considering they are essentially an electric version of the V-Line VLocity designed for country Victorian lines.

Like these?

https://www.alstom.com/our-solutions/ro ... %20tramway.

[rubberman]

I think it will probably end up a combination of the worse aspects of both. Marginal if any speed improvement, some minor tinkering with stations, with maybe 1 or 2 closures if that.. and some extra car parking. Outcome ... same system with new trains and a completely wasted oportunities just like Seaford.

Yes. I know it sounds harsh, but the Outer Harbour line barely averages 35kph, and almost never gets over 60kph. Replacing it with an O-Bahn or busway would probably cut five minutes off travel time and be way less expensive. Add to that, the extra flexibility of buses being able to branch off at various points, eg to West Lakes, Largs, Semaphore, with zero extra cost, and it becomes a no-brainer. Add to that a tunnel from Adelaide Railway Station to Hindmarsh Square and the O-Bahn, and there'd be a real winner.

How would that affect the rail bridge over the NSM, and other bridges around the Port? Obviously they'd need re-doing..
What about intersections? Would there be boom gates, or would the crossings be removed?
Would there be less stops and a couple interchanges like the current O-bahn?

Where would it branch off from and how? Would the o-bahn track continue or would they come off the o-bahn track and continue along the roads?

Bridges would need modification, but with far lighter axle loads, those wouldn't need to be new bridges with all that cost.

You could either retain boom gates or use traffic lights. Boom gates if the buses went straight through, lights if the intersection was one where the bus was to deviate onto the intersecting road.

At any intersection with a main road, the bus would not be within guide walls, so therefore completely under the control of the driver. Thus, a bus could turn onto the main road in the same way buses leave the O-Bahn today.

The idea would be to have the same stops, BUT, buses accelerate much quicker and spend far less time at stops. Save 10 seconds waiting each stop and another 10 seconds between, and you are close to 5 minutes on the Outer Harbour line saved. Plus, it's far cheaper. Plus, places like Largs and Semaphore and West Lakes benefit too.

Frankly, it doesn't even have to be an O-Bahn. It can be a simple busway with access for emergency services too.

With electric buses, it could also use a tunnel through to Hindmarsh Square and the O-Bahn (as O-Bahn obviously).

[PeFe]

I think it will probably end up a combination of the worse aspects of both. Marginal if any speed improvement, some minor tinkering with stations, with maybe 1 or 2 closures if that.. and some extra car parking. Outcome ... same system with new trains and a completely wasted oportunities just like Seaford.

Yes. I know it sounds harsh, but the Outer Harbour line barely averages 35kph, and almost never gets over 60kph. Replacing it with an O-Bahn or busway would probably cut five minutes off travel time and be way less expensive. Add to that, the extra flexibility of buses being able to branch off at various points, eg to West Lakes, Largs, Semaphore, with zero extra cost, and it becomes a no-brainer. Add to that a tunnel from Adelaide Railway Station to Hindmarsh Square and the O-Bahn, and there'd be a real winner.

A better option would be light metro style rail. High-capacity, comfortable trains that are suited to short and medium distance commuting, and which can accelerate and decelerate quickly. Relatively close station placing should not be a problem with such trains (metro lines in Europe and Asia where such trains are used often have station spacing of around 1km).

Adelaide's current electric trains are not really suitable for a metropolitan network with frequent stops. They are simply too bulky and heavy - better suited for higher-speed cruising on inter-urban commuter lines. This is not surprising considering they are essentially an electric version of the V-Line VLocity designed for country Victorian lines.

So little love on this forum for the Outer Harbor heavy rail line....

Same old light rail vs heavy rail arguments (I would classify Alstom train trams as light rail)

And I would like to know why the A400 trains are unsuitable? They look very similar to the style of trains running on the Perth and Brisbane networks to me....Perth trains may get up a bit of speed on the Mandurah line but not on the rest of the network.

And now we have the "convert the rail line to O-Bahn or bus corridor" idea.......One 3 carriage A400 train can carry 540 passengers....thats 9 standard 60 capacity bues.......so for every train you would need 9 buses.
And buses can easily meet the trains at an interchange if they are needed for the last 2-3 kms.

If there is such a great need to speed up the Outer Harbor line then cull some of the stations.....there are 3 or 4 prime candidates

[rubberman]

Yes. I know it sounds harsh, but the Outer Harbour line barely averages 35kph, and almost never gets over 60kph. Replacing it with an O-Bahn or busway would probably cut five minutes off travel time and be way less expensive. Add to that, the extra flexibility of buses being able to branch off at various points, eg to West Lakes, Largs, Semaphore, with zero extra cost, and it becomes a no-brainer. Add to that a tunnel from Adelaide Railway Station to Hindmarsh Square and the O-Bahn, and there'd be a real winner.

A better option would be light metro style rail. High-capacity, comfortable trains that are suited to short and medium distance commuting, and which can accelerate and decelerate quickly. Relatively close station placing should not be a problem with such trains (metro lines in Europe and Asia where such trains are used often have station spacing of around 1km).

Adelaide's current electric trains are not really suitable for a metropolitan network with frequent stops. They are simply too bulky and heavy - better suited for higher-speed cruising on inter-urban commuter lines. This is not surprising considering they are essentially an electric version of the V-Line VLocity designed for country Victorian lines.

So little love on this forum for the Outer Harbor heavy rail line....

Same old light rail vs heavy rail arguments (I would classify Alstom train trams as light rail)

And I would like to know why the A400 trains are unsuitable? They look very similar to the style of trains running on the Perth and Brisbane networks to me....Perth trains may get up a bit of speed on the Mandurah line but not on the rest of the network.

And now we have the "convert the rail line to O-Bahn or bus corridor" idea.......One 3 carriage A400 train can carry 540 passengers....thats 9 standard 60 capacity bues.......so for every train you would need 9 buses.
And buses can easily meet the trains at an interchange if they are needed for the last 2-3 kms.

If there is such a great need to speed up the Outer Harbor line then cull some of the stations.....there are 3 or 4 prime candidates

The reason it keeps coming up is because the economics and speed of heavy rail on that line are very poor. It's only politics that keeps them there. In this case specifically, the ALP wouldn't cross the rail unions, and the Liberals aren't that focused on public transport. However, the end of heavy rail to Outer Harbour is only one dynamic and competent Transport Minister away.

Sure, one 3 carriage train can carry 540 passengers. But how often is that needed? It's not how many people a particular mode can carry, it's how many people are needed to be carried, and what's the best mode for that task.

It's really simple. Either fast trains with half the stations, or light rail/busway with the same number of stops. Trying to ask heavy rail to act as if it were a tram is what is being done now. Trams (or buses) are better at that.

[PeFe]

The reason it keeps coming up is because the economics and speed of heavy rail on that line are very poor. It's only politics that keeps them there. In this case specifically, the ALP wouldn't cross the rail unions, and the Liberals aren't that focused on public transport. However, the end of heavy rail to Outer Harbour is only one dynamic and competent Transport Minister away.

So after spending how many millions of dollars on the Park Terrace underpass and the South Road overpass you want to start to start again and rebuild in a different mode.....

Sure, one 3 carriage train can carry 540 passengers. But how often is that needed? It's not how many people a particular mode can carry, it's how many people are needed to be carried, and what's the best mode for that task.

Well that's a very efficient way of moving a lot of people.....why duplicate bus routes to the city when they can join the bus in the outer suburbs (Works well in Perth)

It's really simple. Either fast trains with half the stations, or light rail/busway with the same number of stops. Trying to ask heavy rail to act as if it were a tram is what is being done now. Trams (or buses) are better at that.

Just looked at the Adelaide Metro timetables....
Victoria Square to Glenelg...10kms.....32 minutes by tram
Port Adelaide to Adelaide Railway Station......11kms......21 minutes by heavy rail

Why would anyone in the north western suburbs want their fast rail service taken away from them?

By your logic the Flinders train extension should have never happened....

[ChillyPhilly]

Buses would render the Torrens Junction a waste of money.

Stations can probably be culled, and more grade separations are needed.

[rubberman]

The reason it keeps coming up is because the economics and speed of heavy rail on that line are very poor. It's only politics that keeps them there. In this case specifically, the ALP wouldn't cross the rail unions, and the Liberals aren't that focused on public transport. However, the end of heavy rail to Outer Harbour is only one dynamic and competent Transport Minister away.

So after spending how many millions of dollars on the Park Terrace underpass and the South Road overpass you want to start to start again and rebuild in a different mode.....

Sure, one 3 carriage train can carry 540 passengers. But how often is that needed? It's not how many people a particular mode can carry, it's how many people are needed to be carried, and what's the best mode for that task.

Well that's a very efficient way of moving a lot of people.....why duplicate bus routes to the city when they can join the bus in the outer suburbs (Works well in Perth)

It's really simple. Either fast trains with half the stations, or light rail/busway with the same number of stops. Trying to ask heavy rail to act as if it were a tram is what is being done now. Trams (or buses) are better at that.

Just looked at the Adelaide Metro timetables....
Victoria Square to Glenelg...10kms.....32 minutes by tram
Port Adelaide to Adelaide Railway Station......11kms......21 minutes by heavy rail

Why would anyone in the north western suburbs want their fast rail service taken away from them?

By your logic the Flinders train extension should have never happened....

Look. I know there are heavy rail advocates here, but if you put that argument up before a diligent Minister, they might ask themselves "Why are these guys comparing tram routes with 20 stops, of which three are in the street, with rail routes with ten stops and no street running?"

As for the Park Terrace underpass, why is that an issue? If, as I suggested the line was underground till Hindmarsh Square and connected to the O-Bahn, the underpass would still be used...as part of the busway.

I agree with feeding the rail system, if it is fast enough. But hey, remember the recent route changes where just a tiny bit of rationalisation was tried. Minister lost his job. So good luck trying to convince government about that. Sorry.

Look. I think if you could knock out half the stations and get speeds up to 50kph then you might stand a chance of increasing patronage to a point where it approached the level that makes heavy rail worth while. But the political fallout from eliminating those stations and having people transfer isn't going to let it happen. Plus, realistically, to really make an impact on patronage, you'd want to aim for an average of 80kph.

[ChillyPhilly]

I'd anticipate that the required gradient for a tunnel under the Torrens from Park Terrace would be too steep. If the OH line were to be converted to a busway, then it'd be physically easier and far cheaper to run a track through the Parklands to join up with Currie Street.

The OH/Grange line has only suffered due to a lack of investment and modernisation over 40+ years. It is effectively heavy rail, performing a light rail service, in areas not suited to either.

Objectively speaking, a few stations along the LeFevre Peninsula can be culled, along with the likes of East Grange, Cheltenham, Woodville Park and West Croydon. However, these three still form crucial and otherwise missing public transport connections for those who use them.

Grange, Seaton Park and Kilkenny have TOD potential.

[rubberman]

I'd anticipate that the required gradient for a tunnel under the Torrens from Park Terrace would be too steep. If the OH line were to be converted to a busway, then it'd be physically easier and far cheaper to run a track through the Parklands to join up with Currie Street.

The OH/Grange line has only suffered due to a lack of investment and modernisation over 40+ years. It is effectively heavy rail, performing a light rail service, in areas not suited to either.

Objectively speaking, a few stations along the LeFevre Peninsula can be culled, along with the likes of East Grange, Cheltenham, Woodville Park and West Croydon. However, these three still form crucial and otherwise missing public transport connections for those who use them.

Grange, Seaton Park and Kilkenny have TOD potential.

Why wouldn't the existing track from Bowden to Adelaide Railway Station be removed and replaced with a busway? That could then just turn up and over the Morphett Street Bridge to connect with O-Bahn services in Grenfell Street.

[ChillyPhilly]

I'd anticipate that the required gradient for a tunnel under the Torrens from Park Terrace would be too steep. If the OH line were to be converted to a busway, then it'd be physically easier and far cheaper to run a track through the Parklands to join up with Currie Street.

The OH/Grange line has only suffered due to a lack of investment and modernisation over 40+ years. It is effectively heavy rail, performing a light rail service, in areas not suited to either.

Objectively speaking, a few stations along the LeFevre Peninsula can be culled, along with the likes of East Grange, Cheltenham, Woodville Park and West Croydon. However, these three still form crucial and otherwise missing public transport connections for those who use them.

Grange, Seaton Park and Kilkenny have TOD potential.

Why wouldn't the existing track from Bowden to Adelaide Railway Station be removed and replaced with a busway? That could then just turn up and over the Morphett Street Bridge to connect with O-Bahn services in Grenfell Street.

How would the ramp be successfully raised and given sufficient room for a loop to be created?

[PeFe]

Look. I think if you could knock out half the stations and get speeds up to 50kph then you might stand a chance of increasing patronage to a point where it approached the level that makes heavy rail worth while. But the political fallout from eliminating those stations and having people transfer isn't going to let it happen. Plus, realistically, to really make an impact on patronage, you'd want to aim for an average of 80kph.

Why do you have to get the trains to run at 50kph to attract patronage? Absolute rubbish....does the Paris Metro or London Tube get up to 50kph? I doubt it......do they fail to attract patrons?!!

Getting Adelaide trains up to 80kph wont magically increase patronage......yes speed is a consideration but also comfort and amenity of the train system counts as well.

The Adelaide train network is not intrinsically slow, I have used numerous transport systems in Europe, North America and Asia, and speed is usually dictated by station distance but no-one considers Tokyo or Hong Kong failures because they cant average out at 80kph.....

I also read lots of other transport forums and I have never come across any article or post that says :
"Dont use heavy rail if the trains don't average 50kph"

Replacing an already working system with buses or light rail (at the cost of probably one billion dollars) is just lunacy.......

Can the Outer Harbor line be improved? Yes, grade separation, station upgrades and station culling and tods will also help.....

A decent master plan for the line could be step 1.....

[rubberman]

Look. I think if you could knock out half the stations and get speeds up to 50kph then you might stand a chance of increasing patronage to a point where it approached the level that makes heavy rail worth while. But the political fallout from eliminating those stations and having people transfer isn't going to let it happen. Plus, realistically, to really make an impact on patronage, you'd want to aim for an average of 80kph.

Why do you have to get the trains to run at 50kph to attract patronage? Absolute rubbish....does the Paris Metro or London Tube get up to 50kph? I doubt it......do they fail to attract patrons?!!

Getting Adelaide trains up to 80kph wont magically increase patronage......yes speed is a consideration but also comfort and amenity of the train system counts as well.

The Adelaide train network is not intrinsically slow, I have used numerous transport systems in Europe, North America and Asia, and speed is usually dictated by station distance but no-one considers Tokyo or Hong Kong failures because they cant average out at 80kph.....

I also read lots of other transport forums and I have never come across any article or post that says :
"Dont use heavy rail if the trains don't average 50kph"

Replacing an already working system with buses or light rail (at the cost of probably one billion dollars) is just lunacy.......

Can the Outer Harbor line be improved? Yes, grade separation, station upgrades and station culling and tods will also help.....

A decent master plan for the line could be step 1.....

If you look at the cities you mentioned, they have huge populations feeding them from dense urban areas withing walking distance. Those huge populations fill the trains at slow speeds because those huge dense populations require close stations AND loooooooong trains.

Adelaide doesn't have that population density. So, it can't fill long trains. Adelaide does have most people commuting by car...at about 50kph. Just talk to people. They will not leave their cars travelling at 50kph to get into trains travelling at an average of 35kph. You used the word "lunacy". Ok. You go out and try convincing people driving at 50kph to switch to trains at 35kph. Watch their body language and reactions. Might I suggest that "lunacy" is probably the kindest response you'll get. I have suggested 80kph as a target for trains because it's likely to be attractive enough to get people out of their cars. It doesn't matter how nice the trains are. They won't attract patronage in Adelaide in the same way as Tokyo or Paris because we simply don't have the density. Ours need to be fast to get car drivers to switch.

By all means carry on, but as I say, it's only one competent Minister away from scrapping, purely on the economics and low patronage.

[rev]

So little love on this forum for the Outer Harbor heavy rail line....

Same old light rail vs heavy rail arguments (I would classify Alstom train trams as light rail)

And I would like to know why the A400 trains are unsuitable? They look very similar to the style of trains running on the Perth and Brisbane networks to me....Perth trains may get up a bit of speed on the Mandurah line but not on the rest of the network.

And now we have the "convert the rail line to O-Bahn or bus corridor" idea.......One 3 carriage A400 train can carry 540 passengers....thats 9 standard 60 capacity bues.......so for every train you would need 9 buses.
And buses can easily meet the trains at an interchange if they are needed for the last 2-3 kms.

If there is such a great need to speed up the Outer Harbor line then cull some of the stations.....there are 3 or 4 prime candidates

Does the OH line even get that much use where 540 passengers will ever be in the one 3 carriage train? Genuinely don't know how much use it gets as I don't use public transport.

Would it better to add a third set of tracks for express services stopping at only a handful of stops for peak hour? ..not really into such things like others are.

[SBD]

Look. I think if you could knock out half the stations and get speeds up to 50kph then you might stand a chance of increasing patronage to a point where it approached the level that makes heavy rail worth while. But the political fallout from eliminating those stations and having people transfer isn't going to let it happen. Plus, realistically, to really make an impact on patronage, you'd want to aim for an average of 80kph.

Why do you have to get the trains to run at 50kph to attract patronage? Absolute rubbish....does the Paris Metro or London Tube get up to 50kph? I doubt it......do they fail to attract patrons?!!

Getting Adelaide trains up to 80kph wont magically increase patronage......yes speed is a consideration but also comfort and amenity of the train system counts as well.

The Adelaide train network is not intrinsically slow, I have used numerous transport systems in Europe, North America and Asia, and speed is usually dictated by station distance but no-one considers Tokyo or Hong Kong failures because they cant average out at 80kph.....

I also read lots of other transport forums and I have never come across any article or post that says :
"Dont use heavy rail if the trains don't average 50kph"

Replacing an already working system with buses or light rail (at the cost of probably one billion dollars) is just lunacy.......

Can the Outer Harbor line be improved? Yes, grade separation, station upgrades and station culling and tods will also help.....

A decent master plan for the line could be step 1.....

If you look at the cities you mentioned, they have huge populations feeding them from dense urban areas withing walking distance. Those huge populations fill the trains at slow speeds because those huge dense populations require close stations AND loooooooong trains.

Adelaide doesn't have that population density. So, it can't fill long trains. Adelaide does have most people commuting by car...at about 50kph. Just talk to people. They will not leave their cars travelling at 50kph to get into trains travelling at an average of 35kph. You used the word "lunacy". Ok. You go out and try convincing people driving at 50kph to switch to trains at 35kph. Watch their body language and reactions. Might I suggest that "lunacy" is probably the kindest response you'll get. I have suggested 80kph as a target for trains because it's likely to be attractive enough to get people out of their cars. It doesn't matter how nice the trains are. They won't attract patronage in Adelaide in the same way as Tokyo or Paris because we simply don't have the density. Ours need to be fast to get car drivers to switch.

By all means carry on, but as I say, it's only one competent Minister away from scrapping, purely on the economics and low patronage.

What time of day do you get a 50km/h average speed to drive from Port Adelaide to Adelaide? Google Maps presently estimates 22 minutes for 12.2km - an average speed of 33km/h. That's comparable to the speed you say the train timetable runs now, but presumably the train is more predictable. I haven't taken account of parking in the city, which I accept could be much closer to people's desks than Adelaide station so might skew the calculations for some commuters.