[U/C] Port Adelaide Dock Spur Line

[rev]

Why not close both and build a bigger station in the middle?

[PeFe]

Why not close both and build a bigger station in the middle?

In the middle of what? The Port Dock station will effectively be a different line....

[rev]

Why not close both and build a bigger station in the middle?

In the middle of what? The Port Dock station will effectively be a different line....

Read the previous posts before mine. It's a side-tracked discussion.
There's Ethelton & Glanville. The argument was they are about 500m apart apparently.
Remove both and replace them with a larger station in between the two ie..in the middle.

[Pistol]

Why not close both and build a bigger station in the middle?

In the middle of what? The Port Dock station will effectively be a different line....

Read the previous posts before mine. It's a side-tracked discussion.
There's Ethelton & Glanville. The argument was they are about 500m apart apparently.
Remove both and replace them with a larger station in between the two ie..in the middle.

Honestly, it's a no brainer

[MT269]

Why note close Peterhead, Draper and Midlunga? I don't think that creating a hybrid station between Ethelton and Glanville would be wise politically. Closing Cheltenham, West Croydon and Woodville Park as well would enable less stops.

These station locations were envisaged in the SAR days, and were obviously used when the Red Hens were in service. Slow clapped out 3000s cannot provide a fast service if they have to stop every 600 metres.

Remember that the current DIT are appalling when it comes to timetable design, and will provide as much extra time as they perceive as being possible. Tight timetables during the day are a thing of the past, regardless of which mode it is. They want drivers to do 40kph to deter folks from using PT, in order to justify cutting more services.

[marbles]

Why not close both and build a bigger station in the middle?

In the middle of what? The Port Dock station will effectively be a different line....

Read the previous posts before mine. It's a side-tracked discussion.
There's Ethelton & Glanville. The argument was they are about 500m apart apparently.
Remove both and replace them with a larger station in between the two ie..in the middle.

and call it Ethelville?

or Glanton?

[1NEEDS2POST]

It's 1.2 km from the Semaphore Road level crossing to the beach. From Glanville or the proposed station in this thread, it's even further. Something needs to be done to connect the beach with the train station because it's too far to walk and Semaphore is supposed to become another major centre.

This could be a good place for another driverless bus trial because it's a short journey and it needs to be frequent. They've just restarted the trial around Tonsley on public roads, this time with no backup driver on board.

[MT269]

If the Semaphore line was to return, how would it be incorporated into the timetable? The DIT doesn't seem to like having shuttles running in any form. But they were forced to when the Torrens underpass was constructed.

The reason why the Grange line is poorly patronised is because it's equivalent to the shortening the J2 bus route to terminate at stop 13A Military Rd, instead of it running to Harbortown. It ends in an area which does not have any real amenities close by.

Contrary to a recent post, there is scope for a corridor to WL which parallels the boulevard, with compulsory property acquisition taking place. But personally, I'd like to both terminuses retained. Mothballing the line could have serious consequences if an underground CBD loop or similar is ever formed. It won't be, because Adelaide is still stuck in the 1950s, and it will be way out of character.

[1NEEDS2POST]

If the Semaphore line was to return, how would it be incorporated into the timetable?

The bigger question is how would it be built? I can't imagine putting tracks in the median would go down well these days.

Contrary to a recent post, there is scope for a corridor to WL which parallels the boulevard, with compulsory property acquisition taking place. But personally, I'd like to both terminuses retained. Mothballing the line could have serious consequences if an underground CBD loop or similar is ever formed. It won't be, because Adelaide is still stuck in the 1950s, and it will be way out of character.

Agreed, if West Lakes railway gets built, it should be double track at least between Woodville and Albert Park, with grade separation of Port Road. When West Lakes was first developed, they deliberately left space in West Lakes Boulevard for an extension of the Hendon line.

[MT269]

Rebuild the road and remove the median strip. Then place the track in the vacant land that will be available as a result of the removal of bitumen. Place the corridor immediately north of the road, like with some country roads where the track is only metres away.

Those who park there daily won't like it. But it's their problem.

There is a gap of around 35 metres between shop fronts on Semaphore Rd. This gradually increases to around 40 metres the closer one gets towards the beach. Forget about the cars for now, and focus on the a rail connection. It would certainly be useful during special events, and Easter.

[Spotto]

Rebuild the road and remove the median strip. Then place the track in the vacant land that will be available as a result of the removal of bitumen. Place the corridor immediately north of the road, like with some country roads where the track is only metres away.

Those who park there daily won't like it. But it's their problem.

There is a gap of around 35 metres between shop fronts on Semaphore Rd. This gradually increases to around 40 metres the closer one gets towards the beach. Forget about the cars for now, and focus on the a rail connection. It would certainly be useful during special events, and Easter.

A tram down Semaphore Road connecting it through to Port Adelaide and the Dock One development (and even a branch down Commercial Rd) would be far more useful than putting full-size, infrequent trains along Semaphore Rd again. Would connect the Port area to the beach and v.v. with up to 3 convenient tram-train interchanges, and make the area far more walkable.

There is no regular bus route that links Semaphore and the Port area, the only way is by car.

[1NEEDS2POST]

Rebuild the road and remove the median strip. Then place the track in the vacant land that will be available as a result of the removal of bitumen. Place the corridor immediately north of the road, like with some country roads where the track is only metres away.

Those who park there daily won't like it. But it's their problem.

There is a gap of around 35 metres between shop fronts on Semaphore Rd. This gradually increases to around 40 metres the closer one gets towards the beach. Forget about the cars for now, and focus on the a rail connection. It would certainly be useful during special events, and Easter.

A tram down Semaphore Road connecting it through to Port Adelaide and the Dock One development (and even a branch down Commercial Rd) would be far more useful than putting full-size, infrequent trains along Semaphore Rd again. Would connect the Port area to the beach and v.v. with up to 3 convenient tram-train interchanges, and make the area far more walkable.

There is no regular bus route that links Semaphore and the Port area, the only way is by car.

Port Tram vision - Copy (3).png
Port Tram map 2 (incl Dock train) - Copy - Copy.png

One complaint about Adelaide public transport is that it's hard to go between suburbs without going through the city. This tram could help solve that by continuing to the Port Adelaide-Dry Creek railway to Dry Creek for a connection with the Gawler railway line. Then it could use the closed Northfield railway line, which is mostly vacant land. ARTC has planned moving their railway over to the evaporation ponds, so if that happens, the Port Adelaide-Dry Creek railway will be disused.

If they want to complete the east-west connection, the tram could go on Wright Rd to the O-Bahn interchange at Modbury, then Smart Rd just to finish as far east as possible.

This could be built in stages, so it's not a huge upfront cost. The depot could be in the industrial area in Gillman.

[RetroGamer87]

Why note close Peterhead, Draper and Midlunga? I don't think that creating a hybrid station between Ethelton and Glanville would be wise politically. Closing Cheltenham, West Croydon and Woodville Park as well would enable less stops.

These station locations were envisaged in the SAR days, and were obviously used when the Red Hens were in service. Slow clapped out 3000s cannot provide a fast service if they have to stop every 600 metres.

Remember that the current DIT are appalling when it comes to timetable design, and will provide as much extra time as they perceive as being possible. Tight timetables during the day are a thing of the past, regardless of which mode it is. They want drivers to do 40kph to deter folks from using PT, in order to justify cutting more services.

Were the Red Hens faster?

[MT269]

As fast as any standard DMU at the time from what I can tell.

Hopefully ARTC do reroute the current SG line so that it bypasses Salisbury and Penfield. But I haven't heard any mention of such, excluding rumours. It is almost comparable to having a broad gauge oil train running to Port Stanvac without actually loading anything, and then returning to repeat the same task at a designated frequency. I'm sure if the line was built from scratch today, it would not go this way. Against, it's another casualty of backwards thinking in the 1970s prior to gauge conversion.

If anything, the Park Tce crossing will become much less of a hazard, and it's feasibility for use by buses can be reevaluated. Although I still recommend against it, unless there is a permanent TSR of 25kph through the intersection to prevent another incident. It is designed in the worst possible way

[SBD]

As fast as any standard DMU at the time from what I can tell.

Hopefully ARTC do reroute the current SG line so that it bypasses Salisbury and Penfield. But I haven't heard any mention of such, excluding rumours. It is almost comparable to having a broad gauge oil train running to Port Stanvac without actually loading anything, and then returning to repeat the same task at a designated frequency. I'm sure if the line was built from scratch today, it would not go this way. Against, it's another casualty of backwards thinking in the 1970s prior to gauge conversion.

If anything, the Park Tce crossing will become much less of a hazard, and it's feasibility for use by buses can be reevaluated. Although I still recommend against it, unless there is a permanent TSR of 25kph through the intersection to prevent another incident. It is designed in the worst possible way

Even adding the Northern Connector railway wouldn't actually close the existing standard gauge route, at least not initially. The Penfield terminal could become a spur from the through line, but the locomotive workshops at Dry Creek and the Adelaide freight terminal at Regency Park would take longer to relocate, along with the Ghan and Indian Pacific still operate from Keswick. I guess they could be rerouted to use the Northern Connector and Dry Creek-Port Adelaide lines and close Dry Creek to Penfield.