News & Discussion: Regional Transport

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6485
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: Government Inquiry Into a Barossa Passenger Service

#106 Post by Norman » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:05 pm

Wilfy 2007 wrote:
Norman wrote:It's not exactly easy as in just to send down a few trains. There's a few factors that have to be considered:
  • The residents in the Barossa will have to pay more for car registration, as they lose their rural car rego concession
  • Track usage will have to be discussed with other users (ie G&W)
  • Extra rolling stock will be needed
  • Who will pay for track and station upgrades
Norman,
The Barossa residents only get a reduction of $24.00 a year, $2.00 a month.
GWA has already stated they will not stand in the way of a Passenger Railway service
3 Railcars is all that is needed in the beginning.
GWA and TransAdelaide/Dept of Transport could share the costs.
Freight could also be transported from the Barossa to Port Adelaide.
Regards,
Yes, but those are the factors that need to be put into conbsideration and, in cases such as the rego concession, things need to be changed, I was merely pointing out that there need to be a few changes before you can extend public transport into that area.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: Government Inquiry Into a Barossa Passenger Service

#107 Post by monotonehell » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:43 pm

Hindley Street Alley wrote:I might even consider moving there if I could get some damn public transport. Seems like it would make sense to have public transport there. Any comments?
Interesting you say that, talk about the induced demand of PT.
I thought the Govt's new 30 year plan was restricting development in the Barossa and McLaren Vale areas to stop them encroaching onto vineyards? People really shouldn't be encouraged to commute such long distances, should they?
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

drwaddles
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:12 pm
Location: EAS Bay 1

Re: Government Inquiry Into a Barossa Passenger Service

#108 Post by drwaddles » Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:47 am

monotonehell wrote:People really shouldn't be encouraged to commute such long distances, should they?
Exactly - the post you quoted shows one reason why no extension should be built.

it's one thing to induce people to live near an existing service (e.g. anywhere along the Gawler Line) but not to somewhere devoid of a rail link and expect further stretching of resources to ineffectively servie it.

Hindley Street Alley - why not move to Gawler?

fabricator
Legendary Member!
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Government Inquiry Into a Barossa Passenger Service

#109 Post by fabricator » Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:17 pm

The real problem is there is a huge number of seasonal jobs in the Barossa Valley. Vineyards and Wineries employ a number of full time staff, and a huge number of casual workers for pruning, picking and processing of grapes. Some of these casual workers stay in caravan parks (which just happen to increase their rates when there is work available).

So given a train service, people would be able to live or work outside the valley, something they can't really do now except at great expense.
AdelaideNow: Now with 300% more Liberal Party hacks, at no extra cost.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: Government Inquiry Into a Barossa Passenger Service

#110 Post by monotonehell » Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:57 pm

Fabricator, that's a very small problem that would be best served by chartered buses or similar rather than a train (trains are on tracks, you can't build a track to every vineyard). And you said it yourself, the work is seasonal.

In fact the pickers and pruners that I know all jump on a bus in the city which takes them to the appropriate vineyards each day. And those are never the same places week by week. There's an entire industry that employs and transports the labour to where it's needed. (if anyone's interested in this work, be careful when choosing an agent, some are dodgy as heck).

A Barossa train service should never be about daily commuters.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

fabricator
Legendary Member!
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Government Inquiry Into a Barossa Passenger Service

#111 Post by fabricator » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:54 pm

monotonehell wrote:Fabricator, that's a very small problem that would be best served by chartered buses or similar rather than a train (trains are on tracks, you can't build a track to every vineyard). And you said it yourself, the work is seasonal.
The work may be seasonal, but the population of the various towns isn't.

With Clipsal closing their factory in Nuriootpa a lot of full time jobs are gone, only about 9 of the 100 odd staff decided to travel all the way to the new factory at Dry Creek. That alone talks volumes about the travel costs.

The current bus service is around $40 return per day, with the only government subsidy being to provide half price for those with concession. In other words a token effort the government spend very little money on.
AdelaideNow: Now with 300% more Liberal Party hacks, at no extra cost.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Location: Christies Beach

Re: Government Inquiry Into a Barossa Passenger Service

#112 Post by Aidan » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:51 am

monotonehell wrote:
Hindley Street Alley wrote:I might even consider moving there if I could get some damn public transport. Seems like it would make sense to have public transport there. Any comments?
Interesting you say that, talk about the induced demand of PT.
I thought the Govt's new 30 year plan was restricting development in the Barossa and McLaren Vale areas to stop them encroaching onto vineyards? People really shouldn't be encouraged to commute such long distances, should they?
That was the plan during the wine boom, but I don't think protecting vineyard areas has been regarded as so important since there was a wine glut. And even when wine prices were high, it was pointed out that there was plenty of scope for new development within existing towns.

As for long distance commuting, the Northern Expressway will encourage people to commute long distances. The best we can do now is provide public transport so that they can use it rather than driving. But long distance commuting is less of a problem than its detractors claim. The vast majority of the people in the area will still work locally, but people will now have other options available, which should reduce the area's unemployment rate. And people commuting long distances are likely to be doing high value, high paying jobs, so it will bring more money into the area and thus be good for the local economy.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

fabricator
Legendary Member!
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Government Inquiry Into a Barossa Passenger Service

#113 Post by fabricator » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:54 pm

Pretty much the point I've been trying to make Aidan.

Lets not forget the train line is there, in reasonable condition and used daily by a freight train anyway. Its not as if we are talking about have to rebuild the entire line from nothing or that the track itself will cost a fortune to maintain. In the future this line is going to get two extra trains anyway, The Wine Train and an intermodal (container) train when the SG conversion is done. For a 40 odd kilometer branch line that is a reasonable amount of traffic, and hence income.
AdelaideNow: Now with 300% more Liberal Party hacks, at no extra cost.

mattblack
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1106
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:20 am

Penola railway upgrade

#114 Post by mattblack » Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:32 pm

Just posted on Dtei website. Gearing up for the pulp mill. http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/maj ... ay_upgrade

fabricator
Legendary Member!
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Penola railway upgrade

#115 Post by fabricator » Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:32 pm

Upgrade ? *snigger*

Rip up and replace sleepers, then re-lay track as SG. I'd call that a rebuild myself.
AdelaideNow: Now with 300% more Liberal Party hacks, at no extra cost.

User avatar
skyliner
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: fassifern (near Brisbane)

Re: Penola railway upgrade

#116 Post by skyliner » Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:46 pm

Quite surprised and encouraged to see this as there is not much noise around about the mill at present from what I can see.

That track was closed in 1995. the intention appears to 'renew' to Tantanoola (about 20km from MG). The Limestine Coast Railway operated the line from MG to Tantanoola till about 2 years ago - so in much better condition. (making an MG extension a realistic idea. On the renewing idea - the track will need a lot of work if it is going to cater for heavy goods - but still I agree with Fabricator - the gov't will look for the cheapest way out.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE
Jack.

muzzamo
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:44 pm

Re: Penola railway upgrade

#117 Post by muzzamo » Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:55 am

So will there ever be passenger services to MG?

fabricator
Legendary Member!
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Penola railway upgrade

#118 Post by fabricator » Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:25 pm

I've seen recent pics of former Limestone Coast Railway, there is a lot of vegetation which has invaded the track. Plus a few rotten sleepers.

From what I have read, the plan is for the state government to pay for the rest of the track renewal to MG. But also the victorians are trying to get funding for the MG to Heywood (victoria), which would connect to the existing SG Portland line.
AdelaideNow: Now with 300% more Liberal Party hacks, at no extra cost.

User avatar
skyliner
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: fassifern (near Brisbane)

Re: Penola railway upgrade

#119 Post by skyliner » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:27 pm

fabricator wrote:I've seen recent pics of former Limestone Coast Railway, there is a lot of vegetation which has invaded the track. Plus a few rotten sleepers.

From what I have read, the plan is for the state government to pay for the rest of the track renewal to MG. But also the victorians are trying to get funding for the MG to Heywood (victoria), which would connect to the existing SG Portland line.
I did not know that about the track fabricator - but the MG/Tanatanoola section would still be far better than further north.

I am aware of the Vic. movements - the SA gov't had better get on with it or the business will go to Portland and Vic. Pt Adelaide would miss out on much of the traffic planned for there (an extra 20% added to current exports according to Protavia). Vic has enough as it is.

To answer Muzzamo's question - there was talk of passenger line to MG before the recession - one of the cost cuts made by the SA gov't.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE
Jack.

User avatar
Wilfy 2007
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:54 pm

Re: Railcar Passenger service, Angaston to Adelaide.

#120 Post by Wilfy 2007 » Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:52 am

Gidday,
Looks like there will never be a Steamer at the Angaston Station as the Barossa Council are beleived to have started a Bike/Walking track on the Rail corridor from Angaston to Nuri.
Railway Line is also beleived to be lifted at the end of the Station platform for development for the Subaru dealer.
Shame to see a Heritage Railway precinct get changed because of greedy developers.

Regards,

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 0 guests