[VIS] Passenger Trains to Mount Barker

[Nort]

The population of the Mount Barker district is around 40k. The population of Adelaide is 1.4 million. In most other states, indeed in many similar situations in the world this type of setup would be connected by a relatively rapid and frequent train. In the case of Europe this may look like a light rail connecting surrounding villages to the main city, in Australia either diesel or electric heavy rail. It is surely desirable to have some moderately sized towns separate but well connected to Adelaide, rather than continue the urban sprawl, without decent rural greenbelts. I just don't understand what is so hard about upgrading a single exiting rail route between 2 large existing and growing population centers. We're not talking about a shinkanzen here. Just a train that competes with a bus time wise, but can carry volumes more commuters, in more comfort and safety. I beggars belief that up until the 70's SA ran regular rail services to regional areas when the population was much smaller than today, but now its somehow all too hard. SA has got to get away from just throwing more and more buses on the roads, and as the experience of Victoria shows, that once regional towns are connected by somewhat rapid rail connections, the towns benefit by the increased population, amenity and therefore the employment for all the services that go with the new residents.

Absolutely, especially considering that the population is expected to increase to 55,000 by 2036.

[ozisnowman]

SA Government puts this into too hard basket because they wanted to remove freight trains through Belair but the Federal Government did not come to the party for providing funds to move freight trains north of the city, which would have allowed double stacking and other efficiencies.

Whilst i do think that freight trains should move north - the SA Government should look at an integrated signalling system and use of trains that are both dual Diesel/Electric to allow electric trains to travel through both Belair tunnels. This would enable most of the journey to be electric and any remainder of journey say Mount Barker to Murray Bridge to be diesel. These dual Diesel / Electric trains have electric arms that can be lowered to get through tunnels and when electric source is not required. But yes they do cost more (Governments never like this when they are trying to do things on a bargain basement budget. Pity their wages and perks arent held to the same stringent bargain basement rules)

Integrated signalling, bypass tracks and the like could be used to allow passenger trains to use the freight line.

But who knows one day it may happen.

[ozisnowman]

CBD to Hills Passenger Trains - may have to be DUMPED - after Koutsantonis derailed

From Adelaidenow

"The Transport minister has been left hanging after it emerged the Hills to CBD passenger train trail may be dumped because the government and Spanish train operator bungled the brief"

What does it mean by bungled the brief - where they not talking to one another?

Spanish train operator understanding of brief - trains have to go faster than 200km/hr
SA Goverment understanding of brief - cant afford trains that go faster than 200km/hr

[Alyx]

What does it mean by bungled the brief - where they not talking to one another?

On Monday, he told the ABC Talgo had said “that’s not what our trains do” and hadn’t realised the actual size Mount Barker’s population, believing it to be much larger – and far further away from the CBD.

“They’re very keen on commuter traffic between large capital cities, Melbourne-Sydney,” he told ABC Radio.

“When I mentioned that this was a metropolitan service within a city, they all stopped, looked at each other, spoke a few words in Spanish to each other and said, ‘well, that’s not what our trains do’.

[ozisnowman]

When I mentioned that this was a metropolitan service within a city, they all stopped

Hmmm - Tom im pretty sure that Mt Barker is not within Metropolitan Adelaide

However this is of no surprise - penny pinching policies - no future vision.

It should be a fast train and should be going to Stirling, Harndorf, Mt Barker, Monarto and Murray Bridge.
With a fast efficient and frequently scheduled train service you could start expanding these hills towns with proper city centres/hospitals/schools/amenities and have planned growth.

But as typical we love to have the growth first and then plan the roads and other infrastructure later - when it costs 100 x more than it would have before the growth occurred.

Knees Jerk Policies are what they have been accustomed too.

[SBD]

When I mentioned that this was a metropolitan service within a city, they all stopped

Hmmm - Tom im pretty sure that Mt Barker is not within Metropolitan Adelaide

However this is of no surprise - penny pinching policies - no future vision.

It should be a fast train and should be going to Stirling, Harndorf, Mt Barker, Monarto and Murray Bridge.
With a fast efficient and frequently scheduled train service you could start expanding these hills towns with proper city centres/hospitals/schools/amenities and have planned growth.

But as typical we love to have the growth first and then plan the roads and other infrastructure later - when it costs 100 x more than it would have before the growth occurred.

Knees Jerk Policies are what they have been accustomed too.

Mount Barker and Murray Bridge need either rapid commuter transport to/from Adelaide or proper regional city infrastructure - city centre, major hospital, university, diversity of employment. The current SE Freeway has the capacity to support inter-city road traffic. The problem is that it's clogged full of commuting workers and students.

[rhino]

Hmmm - Tom im pretty sure that Mt Barker is not within Metropolitan Adelaide

For all intents and purposes, it is, though.

It should be a fast train and should be going to Stirling, Harndorf, Mt Barker, Monarto and Murray Bridge.

There's no way you're going to get a train to Hahndorf mate!

[SBD]

Hmmm - Tom im pretty sure that Mt Barker is not within Metropolitan Adelaide

For all intents and purposes, it is, though.

It should be a fast train and should be going to Stirling, Harndorf, Mt Barker, Monarto and Murray Bridge.

There's no way you're going to get a train to Hahndorf mate!

The former Ambleside railway station was about 3km from the centre of Hahndorf, so not quite to Hahndorf, but not far off.

[rhino]

The former Ambleside railway station was about 3km from the centre of Hahndorf, so not quite to Hahndorf, but not far off.

Not far off, and a park-and-ride at Ambleside may be good for passengers from Balhannah, Oakbank , Woodside and even Lobethal areas, if the service is fast enough.

[SBD]

The former Ambleside railway station was about 3km from the centre of Hahndorf, so not quite to Hahndorf, but not far off.

Not far off, and a park-and-ride at Ambleside may be good for passengers from Balhannah, Oakbank , Woodside and even Lobethal areas, if the service is fast enough.

For me, the caution on that thought is "induced demand". A train and park'n'ride is helpful for people who are already commuting to Adelaide, but I wouldn't want to establish things that encourage people to move into the Adelaide Hills just because it's as easy to commute to Adelaide as if they lived on the Plains. Hills dwellers should work in the Hills too.

[dbl96]

Hmmm - Tom im pretty sure that Mt Barker is not within Metropolitan Adelaide

For all intents and purposes, it is, though.

It should be a fast train and should be going to Stirling, Harndorf, Mt Barker, Monarto and Murray Bridge.

There's no way you're going to get a train to Hahndorf mate!

Ultimately if we want to make rail to the hills and beyond work, then a new railway alignment is required, to avoid the excessive curvature on the current route, while keeping gradients manageable. As has been discussed previously on this forum, the most suitable alignment would ascend the hills face from Mitcham to the Stirling area via the Brownhill Creek corridor (probably mostly tunneled, due to the topography and to avoid impacts to the environment and existing development). It would join the existing railway alignment for the relatively straight stretch from Aldgate to Bridgewater, and would then mostly follow the freeway alignment from Verdun to Littlehampton, from where it would use the existing branch line alignment to reach Mount Barker centre.

On this alignment, a station at Hahndorf would be an obvious choice. The obvious place to locate the station would be next to the freeway, on the south side of town, perhaps around Echunga Road.

Rail access to Hahndorf actually makes a lot of sense, so long as it is part of a bigger project to connect Mount Barker. The fact is that Hahndorf is a major tourist destination, and the flow of people to and from the town are far in excess of what you would expect considering its relatively small population.

[rhino]

Rail access to Hahndorf actually makes a lot of sense, so long as it is part of a bigger project to connect Mount Barker. The fact is that Hahndorf is a major tourist destination, and the flow of people to and from the town are far in excess of what you would expect considering its relatively small population.

Using the alignment you suggest, I would still expect a station with a park-and-ride at Verdun, to be used by the Onkaparinga Valley and Hahndorf commuters, rather than at Hahndorf. Most people coming to Hahndorf for a day trip would still drive, it's daily commuters who the train will really need to serve. Perhaps in this case the Hahndorf Business Community would see fit to provide a cheap shuttle bus service for tourists to access the train at Verdun.

[dbl96]

Rail access to Hahndorf actually makes a lot of sense, so long as it is part of a bigger project to connect Mount Barker. The fact is that Hahndorf is a major tourist destination, and the flow of people to and from the town are far in excess of what you would expect considering its relatively small population.

Using the alignment you suggest, I would still expect a station with a park-and-ride at Verdun, to be used by the Onkaparinga Valley and Hahndorf commuters, rather than at Hahndorf. Most people coming to Hahndorf for a day trip would still drive, it's daily commuters who the train will really need to serve. Perhaps in this case the Hahndorf Business Community would see fit to provide a cheap shuttle bus service for tourists to access the train at Verdun.

I agree that is also an option, but Hahndorf's main significance is as a tourist destination. It would be better to provide easy access for interstate and overseas tourists (who are not going to be driving) to within easy walking distance of the town centre, and to provide a park and ride facility at other nearby stations - perhaps Bridgewater and Mount Barker itself, if there is a lack of space/access at Hahndorf Station.

Ultimately though, a benefit of creating a new fast rail alignment into the hills is that it would open up the possibility of reactivating the abandoned Onkaparinga Valley rail corridor as a branch line, reducing the need for people to drive from these places. Balhannah, Oakbank and Woodside are all major centres, and together, along with Lobethal to the north form the most heavily populated area of the Hills, outside of the Stirling-Mount Barker corridor. Ideally, after Woodside, the line would deviate from the original alignment to terminate at Lobethal - it is a much more important centre than anything further north on the original corridor.

See below a diagram of a realigned hills line with Onkaparinga Valley branch following the existing alignment from Bridgewater. Black line is at grade, blue is tunnel, red is viaduct/bridge. Stations at Bridgewater, Balhannah and Hahndorf are marked with black dots.

[rhino]

Considering that Balhannah and Hahndorf are at very similar elevations above sea level, that is a very steep railway from Bridgewater to Hahndorf.

[dbl96]

Considering that Balhannah and Hahndorf are at very similar elevations above sea level, that is a very steep railway from Bridgewater to Hahndorf.

Bridgewater is at approximately 400m above sea level, and Hahndorf is at approximately 350m. The proposed alignment is at a minimum 5000m between the two stations, so at a constant gradient, the slope would only be 1%, which is completely workable.

Of course, this requires that the gradient is constant - which is only possible with a tunnel under Bridgewater East and a substantial viaduct to bring the railway over the Ongkaparinga Valley.