News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[ml69]

Both the Concordia and Roseworthy extensions would be single track in my opinion, with a 30 minute frequency on both lines. Once the lines join at Gawler it would maintain the 15 minute frequency on the Gawler Line. Basically, the Gawler Central line would become the Concordia Line and the Gawler Line becomes the Roseworthy line.

The Flinders Line would be best joined by a new local, all stops service between Adelaide and Salisbury, with the longer lines running express between Adelaide, Mawson Lakes and Salisbury. This maintains the frequency on most stations (except Parafield and Islington) if the local service runs every 30 minutes.

I like it. Great idea introducing an all-stop service between Flinders > Salisbury, meaning the Gawler > Seaford services can run express through the inner/middle suburbs.
I still think a 15 min weekday frequency on the Flinders > Salisbury all-stop line should be the aim if we want to grow patronage and maximise our rail investments.

[SouthAussie94]

I like it. Great idea introducing an all-stop service between Flinders > Salisbury, meaning the Gawler > Seaford services can run express through the inner/middle suburbs.
I still think a 15 min weekday frequency on the Flinders > Salisbury all-stop line should be the aim if we want to grow patronage and maximise our rail investments.

If you're wanting to grow patronage, you'd probably need to be more frequent that 15 minutes.

7.5min frequency off peak, 5 min frequency on peak? Not quite turn up and go frequency but not much below it.

Obviously, a lot of work would need to be done before that could become remotely achievable.

[ml69]

I like it. Great idea introducing an all-stop service between Flinders > Salisbury, meaning the Gawler > Seaford services can run express through the inner/middle suburbs.
I still think a 15 min weekday frequency on the Flinders > Salisbury all-stop line should be the aim if we want to grow patronage and maximise our rail investments.

If you're wanting to grow patronage, you'd probably need to be more frequent that 15 minutes.

7.5min frequency off peak, 5 min frequency on peak? Not quite turn up and go frequency but not much below it.

Obviously, a lot of work would need to be done before that could become remotely achievable.

I think we need to walk before we run. Let’s get it to “Go Zone” 15 minute bus frequency firstly, then evaluate next steps after that.

[Spotto]

I like it. Great idea introducing an all-stop service between Flinders > Salisbury, meaning the Gawler > Seaford services can run express through the inner/middle suburbs.
I still think a 15 min weekday frequency on the Flinders > Salisbury all-stop line should be the aim if we want to grow patronage and maximise our rail investments.

If you're wanting to grow patronage, you'd probably need to be more frequent that 15 minutes.

7.5min frequency off peak, 5 min frequency on peak? Not quite turn up and go frequency but not much below it.

Obviously, a lot of work would need to be done before that could become remotely achievable.

I think we need to walk before we run. Let’s get it to “Go Zone” 15 minute bus frequency firstly, then evaluate next steps after that.

Agreed. With the current size of our city and the state of our rail network, 15min frequency is an achievable goal. We currently have it on the Gawler line’s main interchanges, and the Woodville to Adelaide “core” on the Port Dock and Grange lines.

A consistent bare minimum of at least 15mins frequency is the way run a stable service and attract patrons.

[SouthAussie94]

The way to grow patronage is for the service to be better than driving.

The following is all according to Google Maps, timing for an 10.30am arrival in Currie St: (I have minimal knowledge as to the accuracy of it)

A train from Chidda (Salisbury South) takes 23 minutes to get to the city, with an 9:48am departure. An extra 7 minute walk then gets you to Currie St by 10:18.

Driving takes between 24-40 minutes, with Google recommending leaving at 9.50am.

Essentially Driving time = Train time.

If you miss the train by 5 minutes, the 10 minute wait suddenly means that the train now takes a guaranteed 40 minutes, the same as the upper end of the driving time estimate.

If the train isn't a turn-up-and-go service, it severely limits the viability of the train as an alternative to driving. It needs to be frequent, fast, and convenient.

Obviously 7.5 minute frequency is pie in the sky stuff at the moment, but it (and better) should be what we aim for (and expect) in the future.

[rubberman]

The way to grow patronage is for the service to be better than driving.

The following is all according to Google Maps, timing for an 10.30am arrival in Currie St: (I have minimal knowledge as to the accuracy of it)

A train from Chidda (Salisbury South) takes 23 minutes to get to the city, with an 9:48am departure. An extra 7 minute walk then gets you to Currie St by 10:18.

Driving takes between 24-40 minutes, with Google recommending leaving at 9.50am.

Essentially Driving time = Train time.

If you miss the train by 5 minutes, the 10 minute wait suddenly means that the train now takes a guaranteed 40 minutes, the same as the upper end of the driving time estimate.

If the train isn't a turn-up-and-go service, it severely limits the viability of the train as an alternative to driving. It needs to be frequent, fast, and convenient.

Obviously 7.5 minute frequency is pie in the sky stuff at the moment, but it (and better) should be what we aim for (and expect) in the future.

Does anyone here know how much travel times have been shortened as a result of the two programs of electrification and track refurbishment/resleepering?

I have no idea how much that is, but it's surely got to be an input into the case for (or against) further electrification and/or rail system extensions.

For example, if electrification could reduce times from Outer Harbor and Belair, that's a plus. If there's no real improvement, that's a light rail conversion when the existing diesels give up. For example.

[dbl96]

Does anyone here know how much travel times have been shortened as a result of the two programs of electrification and track refurbishment/resleepering?

I have no idea how much that is, but it's surely got to be an input into the case for (or against) further electrification and/or rail system extensions.

For example, if electrification could reduce times from Outer Harbor and Belair, that's a plus. If there's no real improvement, that's a light rail conversion when the existing diesels give up. For example.

There’s a difference between technically possible time savings as a result of electrification, and what has actually been realised.

As has been discussed previously, the Adelaide train network is hampered by all kinds of conservative speed restrictions - some of them necessitated by safety, due to the large number of level crossings, and especially pedestrian level crossings that are everywhere on the network.

[rubberman]

Does anyone here know how much travel times have been shortened as a result of the two programs of electrification and track refurbishment/resleepering?

I have no idea how much that is, but it's surely got to be an input into the case for (or against) further electrification and/or rail system extensions.

For example, if electrification could reduce times from Outer Harbor and Belair, that's a plus. If there's no real improvement, that's a light rail conversion when the existing diesels give up. For example.

There’s a difference between technically possible time savings as a result of electrification, and what has actually been realised.

As has been discussed previously, the Adelaide train network is hampered by all kinds of conservative speed restrictions - some of them necessitated by safety, due to the large number of level crossings, and especially pedestrian level crossings that are everywhere on the network.

Possibly so. However, if spending money on electrification of the Outer Harbor and Belair line won't result in faster travel times, where's the appeal for people to travel? Plus, where's the appeal for politicians to spend money on it?

Now, there's no immediate issue, as the existing railcars are ok. However, when it comes time for them to be renewed, and it's light rail vs heavy rail, and one of those costs a lot more...and doesn't reduce travel times, proponents of heavy rail are going to need a really solid case.

[[Shuz]]

Remember the trains sharing the line with trams proposal for the Outer Harbour line way back in like 2008 or something?

This got me thinking, what if the Port Dock extension was just a stepping stone for bringing this (terrible) idea back?

Tram line extended from Entertainment Centre turning right into Coglin Street and then joining the railway line and sharing the corridor up to Port Dock, then extended right along Vincent Street up to Semaphore.

The actual Outer Harbor line itself would be electrified and have its own corridor up to Port Adelaide, share with trams to Bowden, then onto Adelaide.

I mean surely they didn't spend $54m just for one stop unless there was a bigger picture idea behind it? Kind of like the Festival Plaza and East End tram extensions - although they're stubs for now the bigger picture idea is to extend to North Adelaide and the Parade.

[dbl96]

Remember the trains sharing the line with trams proposal for the Outer Harbour line way back in like 2008 or something?

This got me thinking, what if the Port Dock extension was just a stepping stone for bringing this (terrible) idea back?

Tram line extended from Entertainment Centre turning right into Coglin Street and then joining the railway line and sharing the corridor up to Port Dock, then extended right along Vincent Street up to Semaphore.

The actual Outer Harbor line itself would be electrified and have its own corridor up to Port Adelaide, share with trams to Bowden, then onto Adelaide.

I mean surely they didn't spend $54m just for one stop unless there was a bigger picture idea behind it? Kind of like the Festival Plaza and East End tram extensions - although they're stubs for now the bigger picture idea is to extend to North Adelaide and the Parade.

I don’t think there was any bigger thinking behind it at all. There is no bigger picture thinking in the minds of the current crew in charge of transport strategy in the first place.

The Port Dock extension is motivated by politics alone. The current government has no real plan for expansion of public transport infrastructure (because it is generally expensive and sometimes inconveniences motorists), but they need to make it look like they are doing something about the issue, because at least a substantial part of the voting public regard it as an important issue. Port Dock was a (relitively) inexpensive, non-disruptive, and easy to accomplish project, which allows the government to include in its propaganda that they are investing in public transport.

What’s more, Port Dock was a particularly attractive project for the current government, because it was locally popular, and the Liberals under Knoll had tried to stall it for their own political reasons. Completing it was a party politics victory.

Light rail extensions to the north western suburbs are a good idea, but they should be built as a local connector system which operates on its own discreet network, feeding passengers to the higher speed main line railway.

The northwest light rail network, serving places like Semaphore, West Lakes and Grange (converted corridor) would connect with the existing light rail network via Torrens Rd (connecting Arndale to Woodville Station and the QEH) and North Adelaide, and via Grange and Henley Beach Rds.

I’m in favour of converting the OH line beyond Port Adelaide to light rail as part of this system, as the station spacing and catchment area on the Lefevre Peninsula is more suited to what light rail can offer. Heavy rail/metro would terminate at Port Dock, where it would interchange with the light rail network. Woodville would be the other major interchange.

Ultimately, the heavy rail line could be extended from Port Dock north across the river to provide an express link to the Osbourne shipyards and connect with a future Barker Inlet bridge towards the northwest growth corridor.

[[Shuz]]

The politics argument doesn't really make sense though - that area is a safe Labor seat, always has been and always will be. So why spend money on something you weren't at risk of losing? Unless there had to be a bigger picture...

I agree though, DPTI are a bunch if useless headless chooks atm. They might as well rename it back to the old Highways Department given the focus is solely on the NS motorway and no consideration for PT planning or investment.

[A-Town]

The politics argument doesn't really make sense though - that area is a safe Labor seat, always has been and always will be. So why spend money on something you weren't at risk of losing? Unless there had to be a bigger picture...

I'd say the ongoing attempts to rejuvenate the Port would have played a part too. There are also several new housing developments a short walk from Port Dock, and more will move into the area when the building of the new submarines ramps up.

[dbl96]

The politics argument doesn't really make sense though - that area is a safe Labor seat, always has been and always will be. So why spend money on something you weren't at risk of losing? Unless there had to be a bigger picture...

I agree though, DPTI are a bunch if useless headless chooks atm. They might as well rename it back to the old Highways Department given the focus is solely on the NS motorway and no consideration for PT planning or investment.

I think @A-Town is onto something regarding renewal of the port, but otherwise it’s a broader political play for Labor rather than one confined to this electorate. They basically have no plan for public transport, so to appear to the broader voting base around the city like they are doing something, this was just the easiest project to execute. A pure PR victory at a relatively cheap cost. There weren’t really any other shovel ready projects which wouldn’t have required a major financial commitment (eg other heavy rail extensions) or risked annoying certain groups of voters (eg tram extensions).

I don’t blame DIT for any of this - those guys can make the best of plans, but unless the politicians decide so, those plans won’t come to fruition. Unfortunately the decision about which plans to progress is often made based on political factors rather than utility.