Sensational-Adelaide.com

Waz wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:47 am

An example would be 40 min instead of 30 for OH, and 40min for Port Adelaide spur. You could obviously be flexible with 1-2 extra peak services. By my estimation, you could achieve this by increasing operating cost by less than 20%, but I'd hazard a guess that a service direct into Port Adelaide, having a shorter duration to OH, and more frequent services along the first half of the line would all exceed that with improved patronage.

40 minute frequency is far too infrequent for public transport to be useful.

This is the major problem with this spur, it will decrease the frequency on the Outer Harbor line. The line from just before Woodville to Alberton probably can't support more than a 7.5 minute frequency otherwise residents will complain that level crossings are always shut. Woodville Road also gets shut when Grange trains come through. This section needs to be grade separated and then Grange, Port Dock and Outer Harbor can have reasonable frequencies, unless they go with my earlier suggestion of coupling/decoupling the trains at Alberton.

If we're doing the frequency argument again, it once again needs to be reiterated we know what the frequency will be already. The above extract is from the SCAP submission back in 2019 and it's unlikely to change. It will run 20 in peak, 30 off. Like the Flinders Line. It will not effect the off-peak running on the Outer Harbour because 4tph does not create conflicts with the existing signalling. In peak the Port Dock will likely receive what are currently trains that terminate at Glanville, and new trains as well, as the Glanville trains only run every 30.

The budget says the line will cost $2 million annually to run, which is no small change really.

Now this project is going ahead I just have a couple of thoughts.

One is that a 20/30 minute frequency really isn't appropriate for an interchange station - given the project involves a new Port Adelaide bus interchange.

They should assure that the infrastructure is being built to allow for an all-day frequency of 15 minutes, which in turn would allow for a number of bus routes which currently continue on to the city via Port Road to terminate at the new interchange station.

Second is the station's name. I think it would be confusing to anyone except local Port Adelaide train users to differentiate between the existing 'Port Adelaide Station' and 'Port Dock Station'. For anyone else, you'd assume 'Port Adelaide' is the central station.

It would be worthwhile to consider calling the new station 'Port Adelaide' and changing the name of the existing Port Adelaide Station to something more intuitive but not too close as to be confusing. Perhaps South Port?

To me this would make the most sense, as the station is south of the central Port Adelaide precinct and will no longer be the main Port Adelaide interchange.

I am pretty sure I had advocated before on this forum for a name change to the Port Adelaide train stations if the Port Dock station went ahead....

Port Adelaide becomes Commercial Road

Port Dock becomes Port Adelaide

The criticism I received was that it "would be confusing" well its about to become confusing with 2 stations serving one small area....

PeFe wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:27 pm

I am pretty sure I had advocated before on this forum for a name change to the Port Adelaide train stations if the Port Dock station went ahead....

Port Adelaide becomes Commercial Road

Port Dock becomes Port Adelaide

The criticism I received was that it "would be confusing" well its about to become confusing with 2 stations serving one small area....

From a user experience perspective, it would be rather counter-intuitive to have two stations, on two distinctly different lines, with similar names - let alone there being no clear distinction as to which one gets you into Port Adelaide proper. Zero benefit with rather obvious downsides.

On another note, I think there also needs to be a rethink of Glanville and Ethelton stations, given they're so close to one another (600 metres walking distance).
As Ethelton is being upgraded for $5m, it might be worthwhile looking at removing Glanville, which has a far lower density catchment. With the new Port Adelaide station I can't see any operational need or benefit for Glanville operating as a terminus.

UEX wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 22, 2022 1:48 pm

PeFe wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:27 pm

I am pretty sure I had advocated before on this forum for a name change to the Port Adelaide train stations if the Port Dock station went ahead....

Port Adelaide becomes Commercial Road

Port Dock becomes Port Adelaide

The criticism I received was that it "would be confusing" well its about to become confusing with 2 stations serving one small area....

From a user experience perspective, it would be rather counter-intuitive to have two stations, on two distinctly different lines, with similar names - let alone there being no clear distinction as to which one gets you into Port Adelaide proper. Zero benefit with rather obvious downsides.

On another note, I think there also needs to be a rethink of Glanville and Ethelton stations, given they're so close to one another (600 metres walking distance).
As Ethelton is being upgraded for $5m, it might be worthwhile looking at removing Glanville, which has a far lower density catchment. With the new Port Adelaide station I can't see any operational need or benefit for Glanville operating as a terminus.

Gawler Central station used to be called North Gawler, from 1911 until 1984. I'm not sure when the suburban service replaced country trains there. The name got changed because the Gawler Station is not close to the main business/shopping area.

Intuitively, when a new station opens next to the National Railway Museum, that should be named Port Adelaide for the same reason - it's closer to the business heart of Port Adelaide, and that area is no longer the main docks either. The cyrrent Port Adelaide Docks are served by standard gauge railways - either the Viterra silos area or on Le Fevre Peninsula.

Agreed stations need a rename.

Alternatively, a Kaurna name for the existing Port Adelaide station could be considered. I think the Kaurna name for the Port is Yertabulti.

And regarding potential electrification, is there a need for 3 car sets on the Grange line, and Port Dock line (when complete)? It might be wise to order 2 or even 1 car sets to cut down on operational costs.

It's unusual seeing a 3 car set doing a run which was a single car, at a time when patronage levels were 3 times higher.

Edit: And i do agree with the current dinosaur that is Port Adelaide station being renamed to something more suitable. Such as Commercial Road. I don't understand why there's still the 'alight here for local bus services'. Port hasn't had feeder runs for years now, and none of them served stop 38 Commercial Rd, which is underneath the bridge.

Port Dock should be naned Port Adelaide in my opinion, with signs that aren't just barely visible tiny stickers to indicate the change.

PeFe wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:27 pm

I am pretty sure I had advocated before on this forum for a name change to the Port Adelaide train stations if the Port Dock station went ahead....

Port Adelaide becomes Commercial Road

Port Dock becomes Port Adelaide

Interestingly, the complete reverse of how the station names originally changed over the years.

The original Port Adelaide station was renamed Port Dock in 1916. The current station was called Commercial Road until Port Dock was closed in 1981 and it was renamed Port Adelaide.

UEX wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 22, 2022 1:48 pm

PeFe wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:27 pm

I am pretty sure I had advocated before on this forum for a name change to the Port Adelaide train stations if the Port Dock station went ahead....

Port Adelaide becomes Commercial Road

Port Dock becomes Port Adelaide

The criticism I received was that it "would be confusing" well its about to become confusing with 2 stations serving one small area....

From a user experience perspective, it would be rather counter-intuitive to have two stations, on two distinctly different lines, with similar names - let alone there being no clear distinction as to which one gets you into Port Adelaide proper. Zero benefit with rather obvious downsides.

On another note, I think there also needs to be a rethink of Glanville and Ethelton stations, given they're so close to one another (600 metres walking distance).
As Ethelton is being upgraded for $5m, it might be worthwhile looking at removing Glanville, which has a far lower density catchment. With the new Port Adelaide station I can't see any operational need or benefit for Glanville operating as a terminus.

have a look at the number of people who get off Glanville peak, the weather is hot or when they are events on at Semaphore.

In my opinion, closing Glanville would be asking for trouble. It'd be equivalent to closing Hallett Cove or something. Glanville is the only station in the vicinity of Semaphore Rd. It was poor urban planning which led to the situation of how the suburbs are formed today, and the available services in general.

If a shuttle bus ran from first service to last from a hybrid station located further south, it would be less impractical. But it would inevitably be downgraded to one or two services in each direction per day. Because according to the DIT, there is nothing wrong with minimal services and poor accessibility/security at stations. Just as long as it fits within the skeleton budget.

There is still no mention on bringing back the 333 and 350 bus service, despite it being alluded to.

I completely agree that Glanville would be the better option - It's just a shame that the gov has allocated $5m to rebuild Ethelton when the station is less than 700 metres from Glanville. From the closest end of each station it's only a distance of ~560 metres.

The reality is such station spacing is not appropriate for heavy rail and greatly reduces the ability of the service to be competitive with private vehicles and thus significantly reduces potential patronage growth.


The tight station spacing along the line results in trains taking 26 minutes to travel a distance of only 14.4km from Outer Harbor to Woodville, and 40 minutes to the city. That's an abysmal average speed of around 32 km/h - Barely competitive even if you lived right next to a station, let alone if you want to attract a larger catchment.

Ideally, the gov should redirect the $5m allocated to Ethelton's rebuild to a full upgrade of Glanville, with a plan to eventually decommission Ethelton. Glanville could potentially be moved slightly south as part of the project, along with upgrading pedestrian infrastructure linking to the station to improve connectivity and walking time. You could even look at renaming Glanville as part of the process - would 'Semaphore' or 'New Port' be more intuitive as to the main activity centre it serves?

What they really should be doing is getting rid of the Semaphore Road level crossing and building an an elevated Glanville station over the road.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 01, 2022 10:41 am

What they really should be doing is getting rid of the Semaphore Road level crossing and building an an elevated Glanville station over the road.

I doubt the nearby residents want to hear diesel railcars hauling up the incline to an elevated station. The road can't be lowered much to ensure it continues to drain during global warming, king tide and rain all happening at once.

Well obviously the OH line should be electrified.