Sensational-Adelaide.com

I see the Belair lne line is not to be electrified.

Someone may be able to give me a substantiated reason as to why not. I heard that a new line is being thought about for rail traffic to access Dry Creek, but not going through belair or using that line. The line is currently one track broad gauge and one standard? Suggestion - If all freight went on the new line a twin broad or narrow gauge could be set up for suburban traffic and electrified at a later date. Is this in essence the cause of delay or is suburban traffic so low as to not warrant it.

ADELAIDE - CITY ON THE MOVE

The Belair line will be standardised but will remain diesel operated (with 12 3000 remaining diesel operated to work the services).

The reason why the Belair line is remaining as is (except for track gauge) is because $3million was allocated in the last Federal Budget to undertake a study of the current ARTC line through the Adelaide Hills and to see if a bypass (running from near Murray Bridge to Two Wells/Virginia is viable. Therefor, a "wait and see" approach is being taken with the Belair line waiting upon an outcome from the study. What that does mean however is when the Belair line is standardised, it is possible for suburban services to run on double standard gauge track rather then on a single broad gauge line beside a standard gauge one at present. That is however dependant if access agreements between TransAdelaide and ARTC are negotiated and the platforms on the ARTC side of the line rebuilt/upgraded.

Another reason why the Belair line isn't being electrified is because of Sleeps Hill and Eden Hills tunnels. Both of these tunnels (which are annoyingly heritage listed) possess very tight clearances between the roof of the rail vehicle and the tunnel roof. Eden Hills tunnel is especially tight. One may notice that the tunnel bore at Eden Hills tunnel on the ARTC line has a far higher overhead height. This tunnel was rebuilt in c.1928 and was designed with electrification in mind hence the increased roof height. The tunnel bore on the TransAdelaide line is one of the original tunnel bores dug in 1882/1883 when the line was built between Adelaide and Belair and is generally regarded by drivers/railfans alike as a 'rat hole'. National Park and Upper Sturt tunnels are also extremely tight.

I think in turn with the 'wait and see' approach to the Belair line, that a study should be commisioned into finding an alternative route (for passenger services) to navigate its way through the existing region, and reconnect with the former Mount Barker line - which is much more direct between Upper Sturt and Bridgewater than it is from Clapham to Belair.

It would be fairly evident, given the substaintial urban infill that has taken place, that any new line would incorporate a few more tunnels and perhaps lesser stations as a result?

Hi guys , first post, so be kind if this isn't in the right spot.
After all the joy shown by people on the site over the extension to the trams and upgrade of existing rail network
I was wondering when there would be pressure to extend the network into the eastern/ inner suburbs ?

the lines previously existed down the parade, in dulwich and down duthy/george street. Whilst these areas are not "up and coming" they are high density living areas with a number of schools and other conviences such as Shopping malls and local football grounds. I live just out of the city square and the public transport is non-existant the buses are generally full as they come from a long way out of the city and the King William Road Tram stop is the closet other alternative.

I would love to see the trams extended the otherway in the near future starting down the prade and possibly down Glen Osmond/ Unley Road, these tracks could be included in an around city loop.

Anyway - those are my thoughts !

capitalist wrote:Hi guys , first post, so be kind if this isn't in the right spot.
After all the joy shown by people on the site over the extension to the trams and upgrade of existing rail network
I was wondering when there would be pressure to extend the network into the eastern/ inner suburbs ?

the lines previously existed down the parade, in dulwich and down duthy/george street. Whilst these areas are not "up and coming" they are high density living areas with a number of schools and other conviences such as Shopping malls and local football grounds. I live just out of the city square and the public transport is non-existant the buses are generally full as they come from a long way out of the city and the King William Road Tram stop is the closet other alternative.

I would love to see the trams extended the otherway in the near future starting down the prade and possibly down Glen Osmond/ Unley Road, these tracks could be included in an around city loop.

Anyway - those are my thoughts !

With the government's announcement of streamlining of building approvals and higher density along the rail network I would hope councils like Norwood Payneham St Peters start looking at highrises (maybe up to a max of 5 storeys) along its main roads (The Parade, Magill, Payneham and Kensington Roads). I drive down these roads, mostly The Parade and Magill Road, but I wouldn't be too bothered seeing trams on them as long as the buses running into the city were eliminated and only used as feeders to that system.

Cheers

The only thing you could build in the eastern suburbs is light rail. Heavy Rail is impossible due to the lack of suitable corridors, even if it was undergrounded.

I would have assumed light rail/tram

i'd go as far as closing off roads to utilise - i.e duthy street should never has been a thorough fare like it is.

Ho Really wrote:

Will wrote:You have contradicted yourself in your flawed arguement. In the first half of your arguement you state "Why has it taken until now for Rann and his party of clowns to finally come up with something? "

Public pressure!

but you end your arguement complaining about the extra "STATE ECONOMIC DEBT"

The bottom half of your post explains why it took Rann and his 'clowns' until now to announce the electrification of the rail system. They did not do it before because we had a weaker economy and simply could not afford it. They announced it this year, because as a state we are now in a position to afford it. Before, such spending would have been irresponsible.

That's incorrect. SA has had a AAA rating for several years now, and Kevin Foley has been boasting about it. This government could have easily done this earlier, in their first term. Interest rates are now much higher (not to include inflation, etc.). We may have a mining boom coming on, but it is not here yet and there are always uncertainties with the global economy, especially with energy costs going up all the time. Going into debt for infrastructure is not always bad, however they need to get things right and not waste money on projects we do not need (in some cases not giving SA a return).

Cheers

Ho Really I'm not too sure of the relevance of the AAA rating qualification in your argument. This rating is usually used as a guideline for determining the premium to the investor who is holding government debt securities and not necessarily the decision to raise debt in the first place to fund infrastructure projects. Obviously if debt is AAA rated the risk premium or return to the investor will be lower and hence the security will be discounted less than a lower rated debt security.

The issue of affordability and feasability for large infrastructure projects is a completely different one. It is true that the state was not previously in a position to fund such projects due to negative population growth and a lack of private investment in Adelaide as well as large existing debts. The conditions for it just weren't there. So i completely agree with what Will had to say, he is absolutely correct. Unfortunately things take time and we're only at a point now where investment fromt he private sector in SA is higher so why then shouldn't the government now invest in the state too?

This can always be used as an argument when talking about Government or personal spending. "It would have been cheaper then" doesn't resonate however. We are in the position economically than we have been in a very long time. South Australia's infrastructure languished because much of the capital to spur it on was not available. Going into debt is always a risk, but this one is a measured and calculated one. Its also a solid investment in our future as a sustainable city. We need to take on board funding to solutions for Peak Oil and Climate change. The automobiles use will decline rapidly in the next 5-10 years, hopefully replaced by more environmentally friendly alternatives, including comprehensive public transport.



That is the whole point. The Government is trying to do just that. They are aware that if public transport, hospitals, schools and residential construction is seen as sub-standard, the investment from the mining boom might faulter .. or .. we might not reap the utmost benefits from it. The government is, through this massive injection into infrastructure and the Planning Review, trying to reinvigorate SA and make it a very cost-competitive place to do business. We should all be concerned that we do not fail to ride the impending wave as best we can

The superschool has a specific purpose. They are modelled on 'Specialist Schooling' from the UK and elsewhere. Its not a matter of just consolidating. Its about providing Birth - Year 12 students with options for the future. With the trade (through defence) and mining booms, we are in need of such refocussing of our education curriculums. Another investment in our future.

Here's something that caught my attention in yesterday's Northern Messenger newspaper.

Northern Messenger wrote: Welcoming the electrification, Gawler Mayor Brian Sambwell said he hoped that the rail line would also be extended in the future. Mr Sambwell said that the State Government had already held talks with the council about possibly extending the line 4km to Gawler East, following it's decision to extend the urban boundry near the township blah blah blah.....

Can this budget get any better should this go ahead as well as everything else?

As good as that sounds are people really interested in sitting on a train for that long?

Will409 wrote:Can this budget get any better should this go ahead as well as everything else?

Ask a teacher, or a nurse, or a doctor at a public hospital. You have to admit there's something not right when the Govt tries to negotiate wage increases at a rate lower than inflation. I'm really happy that infrastructure here in South Australia is moving ahead at last, but there's no point building schools and hospitals when the qualified teachers, nurses, and doctors are moving interstate because ours are already the lowest paid, and the pay increases offerred don't even keep up with inflation.

rhino wrote:You have to admit there's something not right when the Govt tries to negotiate wage increases at a rate lower than inflation.

Wages should never, ever, ever be pegged to inflation. If they are, the dollar will be worthless within a decade.

AtD wrote:

rhino wrote:You have to admit there's something not right when the Govt tries to negotiate wage increases at a rate lower than inflation.

Wages should never, ever, ever be pegged to inflation. If they are, the dollar will be worthless within a decade.

And how should they be pegged ? What happens if you work in a profession that is non-profit - i.e. emergency services. How should
our wages be determined ? `

The point was that wage growth itself causes inflation as they are passed on to consumers. This is one of the many reasons inflation is a positive feedback loop that once unleashed, is very hard to control. Hence the RBA is mandated to inflict "pain" to keep inflation in check.