Sensational-Adelaide.com

[Shuz] wrote:$85m seems awfully cheap for a 600m electrified train extension, that requires 2 new stations to be built, and the whole rail structure will be on a bridge. Something isn't right with the cost figure.

Might be a combination of a number of factors:

- No land resumptions required for the projects.
- Minimal if any service relocations required.
- Majority of the project to be constructed as pre-cast segments rather than in-situ, which would result in significant labour savings.

AG wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:$85m seems awfully cheap for a 600m electrified train extension, that requires 2 new stations to be built, and the whole rail structure will be on a bridge. Something isn't right with the cost figure.

Might be a combination of a number of factors:

- No land resumptions required for the projects.
- Minimal if any service relocations required.
- Majority of the project to be constructed as pre-cast segments rather than in-situ, which would result in significant labour savings.

we also have a bit of track and catenary stored away waiting to be used

Perhaps they left a zero off the number by mistake.

Seriously though, it probably should cost that much. It's just that we are used to paying grossly inflated prices for infrastructure, so that when we see a price that is actually reasonable, we think it's low.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-12/g ... ms/7403882

The Tonsley extension was all partly wrapped up together with the Darlington upgrade, and it was when they announced that the Darlington upgrade would be cheaper than expected that they also suggested a bit more money could build the train extension.

I expect it's much cheaper building the railway bridge together with the rest of the upgrade rather than separately.

Waewick wrote:so it will be an eletric line? assume the tonsley line is already electrified?

but yes, tiding up Gawler line appears to be way off the thought bubble of the State and Federal Government.

dons the hat of a cynic:
Gawler Line will probably be the last priority, there's no new votes in it for Jay and turbo Tom. The North is solid Labor.

[Shuz] wrote:$85m seems awfully cheap for a 600m electrified train extension, that requires 2 new stations to be built, and the whole rail structure will be on a bridge. Something isn't right with the cost figure.

Two reasons.
1. Single elevated track
2. Only one station required - looks like Tonsley may not be retained

This is not a new announcement, just an announcement on funding. As mentioned before, it's part of the existing update to the Darlington interchange. (Scroll down to the end).
http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/nsc ... de_project

Westside wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:$85m seems awfully cheap for a 600m electrified train extension, that requires 2 new stations to be built, and the whole rail structure will be on a bridge. Something isn't right with the cost figure.

Two reasons.
1. Single elevated track
2. Only one station required - looks like Tonsley may not be retained

This is not a new announcement, just an announcement on funding. As mentioned before, it's part of the existing update to the Darlington interchange. (Scroll down to the end).
http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/nsc ... de_project

Not retaining Tonsley? What's your source on that Westside? Not sure its a good idea if its true. I realise its only 650m, but would definitely affect the Tonsley development, and with everything there, at the end of the line, at the end of such a short line, I think it should have its own station.

fishinajar wrote:

Westside wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:$85m seems awfully cheap for a 600m electrified train extension, that requires 2 new stations to be built, and the whole rail structure will be on a bridge. Something isn't right with the cost figure.

Two reasons.
1. Single elevated track
2. Only one station required - looks like Tonsley may not be retained

This is not a new announcement, just an announcement on funding. As mentioned before, it's part of the existing update to the Darlington interchange. (Scroll down to the end).
http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/nsc ... de_project

Not retaining Tonsley? What's your source on that Westside? Not sure its a good idea if its true. I realise its only 650m, but would definitely affect the Tonsley development, and with everything there, at the end of the line, at the end of such a short line, I think it should have its own station.

Funnily enough, the station closest to the Tonsley site is called Clovelly Park, which will be retained and (hopefully) upgraded. So there is no impact on that site.

Norman wrote:Funnily enough, the station closest to the Tonsley site is called Clovelly Park, which will be retained and (hopefully) upgraded. So there is no impact on that site.

Ah yes, that makes sense. Thanks Norman

They're still thinking about whether Tonsley station will go or stay I think. Hoping Clovelly Park gets an upgrade though - sorely needed. They need to put in a crossing loop at that station as well like they've previously proposed to enable 15 minute frequency.

On the Goodwood station bike overpass:

http://www.bikesablog.com/2016/05/adela ... sing-link/





Looks great and should improve station access dramatically. Will be able to get rid of the underground station access which is so dark and dodgey.

So close to being able to put a platform for the tram there as well, but like was said before I guess it couldn't quite happen without rebuilding the tram bridge as well.

Looks great!

Looks good, hopefully it also includes a revamp of Goodwood Station and replacing those hideous shelters.

samwinter wrote:So close to being able to put a platform for the tram there as well, but like was said before I guess it couldn't quite happen without rebuilding the tram bridge as well.

It really is a wasted opportunity to have light rail run straight over an exisiting train station. The tramline should be rebuilt and incorporate new tram platforms with elevators and stairs connecting it to a revamped Goodwood Station below.

Looking at Google Street Maps, the tram bridge looks like it's near its expiry date.

crawf wrote: It really is a wasted opportunity to have light rail run straight over an exisiting train station. The tramline should be rebuilt and incorporate new tram platforms with elevators and stairs connecting it to a revamped Goodwood Station below.

Completely agree.

Having a vague idea how government tenders work, i'm hoping that this is the "concept design" only. They then bundle up their requirements and put it out to tender, with a full tram-train interchange listed as a "nice to have" rather than a "mandatory" requirement. That way if it turns out that none of the tenderers can do it on budget, the department is faced with a choice of either increasing the budget or going with the overpass only. Either way, nothing has been promised to the public so there is no loss of face or embarrassment.

Has anyone asking for a tram change interchange at Goodwood actually used the Goodwood station? It is located nowhere near where people actually need to go. Moving the tram stop a further 500 m from the Goodwood road shops makes no sense, as neither having 2 tram stops 500m apart. Goodwood station itself is poorly used as it just does not service any commercial centre in reality, it is too far walk from Goodwood road. Interchanges work best when surrounded by services, shops, some car parking, and high density residential. Goodwwod station has none of those characteristics. For the few people who actually need to change from the train to go to Glenelg or city south, it is a huge expense, when there are so many more priorities.