Sensational-Adelaide.com

rhino wrote:

[Shuz] wrote: the long-term plan is to redirect the freight line past Murray Bridge, bypassing the Hills and redirected to the north of Adelaide.

Whose long term plan is this? Mitcham Council's? As far as I am aware, this is a Pie in the Sky idea that was dis-counted by ARTC after a comprehensive study, as unnecessary and not cost-effective.

Was there ever a comprehensive study? The only study on its cost effectiveness used calculations so rough as to be useless, and its report has some blatant errors in the cost benefit analysis.

Far from being a pie in the sky idea, it's an entirely sensible improvement that really should have been implemented at the time of standardization. The subsequent rise in land prices is the main reason it's so expensive now.

Aidan wrote:Was there ever a comprehensive study? The only study on its cost effectiveness used calculations so rough as to be useless, and its report has some blatant errors in the cost benefit analysis.

Well, I guess that's an objective(?) thing, isn't it? As far as ARTC was concerned, it was comprehensive enough for them. See Rubberman's comment above for more clarification. You're not the first person to bemoan the comprehensiveness of a report that didn't come up with the result you wanted.

Aidan wrote:Far from being a pie in the sky idea, it's an entirely sensible improvement that really should have been implemented at the time of standardization. The subsequent rise in land prices is the main reason it's so expensive now.

This is assuming there was money available at the time of standardisation, which was already an enormous project that cost heaps. Sure, costs always go up, but that doesn't mean everything should be done now to avoid higher costs at a later date. That way lies the poor house.

All that aside, I'm not convinced that making Adelaide Rail Yard a dead-end yard off the Melbourne-Perth railway is a good idea, from a rail freight point of view. IMO it will lead to a lot more trucks on the road. Even if the main rail yard is moved out to Mallala or thereabouts, it will be more likely that freight will be trucked in from there than transferred to Regency Park by rail, and then trucked.

Breaking into the interesting thread about by-passing the present route through the Mount Lofty ranges,
I would like to direct my fellow rail advocates to a series of articles in the Melbourne 'Age', which will show
that we are not nearly so badly off in rail related matters as we often think. The Victorian Liberal government
has postponed promised rail developments, perhaps for as much as ten years, they are stuck with a horrendously
expensive and nightmarishly inefficient Myki ticketing system (begun by a Labor government), they are proposing
to allow trucks carrying two shipping containers in line onto ordinary two lane roads, and so it goes on.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/by/Adam-Carey

We need sometimes to be grateful to Pat Conlon and other progressive thinkers for the decided improvements in
transport matters undertaken here in the past few years, that I hope will be continued under whoever wins the next
election.

rhino wrote:

Aidan wrote:Was there ever a comprehensive study? The only study on its cost effectiveness used calculations so rough as to be useless, and its report has some blatant errors in the cost benefit analysis.

Well, I guess that's an objective(?) thing, isn't it? As far as ARTC was concerned, it was comprehensive enough for them.

Yes, and considering how an objectively uncomprehensive report was comprehensive enough for ARTC, it almost seems as if ARTC were looking for reasons not to build it - but I cant think of any motive for that unless it's part of a big conspiracy to build the ultra expensive southern route through the Adelaide Hills.

See Rubberman's comment above for more clarification. You're not the first person to bemoan the comprehensiveness of a report that didn't come up with the result you wanted.

The comprehensiveness isn't the problem - the inability to do anything about it is.

Aidan wrote:Far from being a pie in the sky idea, it's an entirely sensible improvement that really should have been implemented at the time of standardization. The subsequent rise in land prices is the main reason it's so expensive now.

This is assuming there was money available at the time of standardisation, which was already an enormous project that cost heaps. Sure, costs always go up, but that doesn't mean everything should be done now to avoid higher costs at a later date. That way lies the poor house.

Ideally there would be a pipeline of projects that could be brought forward or back as required. But that doesn't alter the fact that the Federal Government could have funded it at a time when it would have also saved the cost of standardizing the line through the Adelaide Hills (the way they saved the cost of standardizing the Ballarat line). They chose not to and we've been denied the benefits ever since.

All that aside, I'm not convinced that making Adelaide Rail Yard a dead-end yard off the Melbourne-Perth railway is a good idea, from a rail freight point of view. IMO it will lead to a lot more trucks on the road. Even if the main rail yard is moved out to Mallala or thereabouts, it will be more likely that freight will be trucked in from there than transferred to Regency Park by rail, and then trucked.

What do you mean "Even if..."? Of course moving the main railyard further out would put more trucks on the road! There is no reason to move the terminal, and nor is there a good reason to make every train from Melbourne to Perth or Darwin run via Adelaide. But with significantly reduced train running costs between Adelaide and Melbourne, there should be the opportunity to attract a much higher proportion of freight onto rail.

Aidan wrote:Far from being a pie in the sky idea, it's an entirely sensible improvement that really should have been implemented at the time of standardization. The subsequent rise in land prices is the main reason it's so expensive now.

This is the part the frustrates me most about this state. And I blame state governments of both sides. We do not have a comprehensive transport plan, just knee jerk projects when the feds throw some money around. This proposal to divert freight the other side of the hills has been around since God knows when..at least 40 years that I know of. And yet, because of our states dithering and lack of direction we have had multi millions spend on standardisation through the hills, alteration to the Belair suburban line, and now hundreds of millions being spent in disentagling freight from suburban rail, all of which could have easily funded diversion of freight around the metro area. And why should ARTC be judge and jury in which route should be funded?

Actually if I just may correct you there claybro, I assume you talk of the Goodwood Junction project when you talk about untangling the suburban from the freight lines, IMO this is very good planning as if the Hills bypass does get built, it would be also be very good for the efficiency of the suburban rail network to have a dual track Belair line seperated from the Seaford line. It seems to me this is one of the key reasons why they slotted in the Seaford lines to the east, followed by Belair and the freught tracks. The original proposal had the line configuration as Belair, 2x Seaford and freight.

Quite right Shuz,it will. And if we had the population of the Eastern states, that whole line would be straightened through the hills and enable it to serve mt Barker and Murray Bridge, But I guess my point was that money would have been better spent toward keeping freight out of the SE suburbs all together, and there is just no way the Belair line suburban traffic alone would justify such enormous expense. I am still of the opinion the state government will try its hardest to close Belair once the rest of electrification is complete and it is the only line left relying on old deisel cars. The Belair/Blackwood catchment area really cant grow that much bigger, there are no TOD developements planned for the SE suburbs, and at present, the Mercedes driving mums of mitcham dont take trains anyway. Unfortunately I think they will look at the current bus arrangements and decide Belair just really isnt worth the trouble. If the Libs win the next state election, then all rail infastructure except Seaford and Gawler will be under threat, as the libs are not known in their support for rail.

Well, I'm hoping that the Integrated Transport & Movement strategy will go some way to addressing these sort of key issues about the medium-long term viability of passenger rail services in the Adelaide Metropolitan area.

[Shuz] wrote:Well, I'm hoping that the Integrated Transport & Movement strategy will go some way to addressing these sort of key issues about the medium-long term viability of passenger rail services in the Adelaide Metropolitan area.

Shuz, the problem with studies/strategies/plans, is that unless they are accompanied by the deisre to follow through with firm comprehensive and costed timescales, the just sit gathering dust. That suburban rail is viable in a city the size of Adelaide is not questioned. The problem is, even with the system we have, is not used to its potential, poorly planned, poorly run.. and has over the years been begrudgingly maintained in barely working form. The current adiminstration has at least recognised the imprtance of bringing rail up to modern standard, but as we have seen, even this strategy was subject to the whims of government finances, and with a change of government in the pipeline????? Well Im not holding my breath for too much more improvement in the near future.

Keswick, Friday - station demolished















http://xaragmata.dyndns-web.com/album/r ... index.html

Is the footbridge going to be demolished as well as the station?

Jamminmelo15 wrote:Is the footbridge going to be demolished as well as the station?

My guess is that it will remain, if only to carry pipes & ducts. Quite a few people use it as a shortcut, so keeping it open would be good unless there are safety reasons for closing it.

Signs were on South road today giving warning of the Cross Road and South road intersection closing over the Easter weekend. I'm adjoining this is to re-do the track work of needed and to install the masts?
Smart move in terms of minimizing disruption to city workers, but i think this will cause a lot of issues for holiday goers wanting to head to/from the freeway over the extended weekend.

There's probably never a time you can close Cross Rd and South Rd and not cause massive disruptions.

Why not do it over night?