[VIS] Passenger Trains to Mount Barker

[SBD]

...

Beyond Bridgewater, realigning the railway onto the SEF median could provide stations at Verdun Interchange and Mount Barker Interchange with park n rides and full bus-train interchanges, with optional smaller "local" stations at Echunga Road for Hahndorf township and Bald Hills Road for serve Blakiston and Nairne plus futureproofing for future Mount Barker expansion, the line would then rejoin the current corridor before Petwood loop.

On the map below, the orange line shows the ideal scenario using the current line and part of the SEF, the blue line uses only the current route to Mount Barker. For the sake of argument, I've also shown the Brown Hill Creek bypass and the ARTC main line realigned via GlobeLink "Short South":

• Mount Barker Line stopping at Showground or Goodwood, Mitcham, Belair, Mount Lofty, Aldgate, Bridgewater, Verdun Interchange, (Hahndorf), Mount Barker Interchange, (Blakiston).

• The Overland stopping at Adelaide and Mount Barker Interchange.

Hills Rail Plan1.png

Do either the Short South or that section of SEF go anywhere close to viable railway gradients? Short South was only considered as an alternative M1 route. I thought the original Globelink rail option was close to viable anyway.

[Bob]

...

Beyond Bridgewater, realigning the railway onto the SEF median could provide stations at Verdun Interchange and Mount Barker Interchange with park n rides and full bus-train interchanges, with optional smaller "local" stations at Echunga Road for Hahndorf township and Bald Hills Road for serve Blakiston and Nairne plus futureproofing for future Mount Barker expansion, the line would then rejoin the current corridor before Petwood loop.

On the map below, the orange line shows the ideal scenario using the current line and part of the SEF, the blue line uses only the current route to Mount Barker. For the sake of argument, I've also shown the Brown Hill Creek bypass and the ARTC main line realigned via GlobeLink "Short South":

• Mount Barker Line stopping at Showground or Goodwood, Mitcham, Belair, Mount Lofty, Aldgate, Bridgewater, Verdun Interchange, (Hahndorf), Mount Barker Interchange, (Blakiston).

• The Overland stopping at Adelaide and Mount Barker Interchange.

Hills Rail Plan1.png

Do either the Short South or that section of SEF go anywhere close to viable railway gradients? Short South was only considered as an alternative M1 route. I thought the original Globelink rail option was close to viable anyway.

Yes – Short South was for road only, not rail.

The 2010 review had the five options for Adelaide Hills freight rail movements, one of those options was the Southern Alignment which was a 22 km tunnel from Goodwood to Mt Bold then surface rail to Callington to meet the existing line, however, the 2018 review process as part of Globe link really knocked that on the head unfortunately, the only viable option being pushed now is the northern bypass option which is scoped up to $5B in cost but will add an hour plus to the Ade-Mel schedule.

Also, I posted the other year on this forum about the inland rail via Parkes being a real threat to Adelaide being left out of any future upgraded national rail network, freight costs to operators on the current Adelaide Hills route have become uncompetitive because no double stacking of containers possible and needing an extra loco to deal with the gradient, and future federal funds might be harder to get if double stacked containers Melbourne-Perth go via Parkes, in which case the Adelaide Hills freight link will die a slow death anyway.

Also, since Port of Adelaide upgraded the shipping channel for larger ships, I believe more container freight is coming in/out direct rather than by rail from Port of Melbourne, plus grain rail traffic reduced from Murray Mallee, no passenger train except The Overland, which is hanging on by a thread, less steel shipments between Ade-Mel now due to decline in heavy manufacturing, the list go…

[Spotto]

My idea behind including Short South as an option for the ARTC line was it's shorter than the 2010 study's Southern Alignment and the GlobeLink study listed Short South as the most feasible of all options explored. Yes, it only investigated a road route, but if a new M1 were to be built along the Short South route it would at least be worth looking into the possibility of including a rail corridor with the road. If feasible, either a Short South Rail or the Southern Alignment would maintain southern rail freight access to Adelaide, would avoid the long detour of the Northern Rail Bypass, and crucially, keep a comparable journey time and distance to the present route.

The Northern Rail Bypass would be useful for freight that is moving from Melbourne and the South East to Darwin or Perth and not wanting to stop at Adelaide or Outer Harbor, with comparable journey times and distances between each end of the bypass along the current route and bypass route. But, for any freight traffic that wants to use Islington Terminal or unloading and port facilities at Outer Harbor, it's a significantly inconvenient detour which could risk actively discouraging rail freight from coming to Adelaide at all (the exact problem that advocates for the Northern Rail Bypass claim that the bypass would solve). Plus, perhaps most crucially, with a massive lack of support from the industry that is meant to use it, I can't see the Northern Rail Bypass happening.

If you're a rail operator or a customer using rail to transport goods from Melbourne, the Riverland (if rail ever returned) or the South East into Adelaide and you were told that the commute between Monarto South and Islington was increasing from some 90km to around 190km, paired with with increased carrying costs for the customer and increased track access fees for the operator, would you still want to use rail to move your product to Adelaide?

[Norman]

If we are purely talking from a passenger rail perspective, another option I thought about randomly was an extension of the Flinders Line. It still provides connections to Blackwood through an underground station and allows for a decent uphill grade. The line shown has an approximate gradient of 1:40 as required. Obviously the location of the line is a very rough example.

If the Flinders Line currently takes about 20-25 minutes from Adelaide to Flinders. Assuming an average speed of 70km/h through the 20km tunnel, it would add another 20 minutes to Hahndorf and other 10 to Mount Barker. That adds up to a 50-55 minute trip. It could also mean the area is better connected to education, healthcare and leisure facilities at Flinders and Marion.

The existing Belair Line could then be converted to light rail, such as a service along Goodwood Road and then turning to the existing Belair Line towards either Mitcham or Belair with connections to the train at Blackwood.

Obvious issues would be the need for extra track space on the Seaford and Flinders Lines, costs and the environment.

[1NEEDS2POST]

How about a bus and high occupancy vehicle lane during peak hour on the SE freeway?

Backed up with surveillance cameras this would decongest the freeway and benefit people willing to use public transport.

We could have a high speed bus. There's a proposal in this thread to put an O-Bahn on the SE freeway and I don't think it's as silly as it sounds. https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/fo ... =17&t=6340

[marbles]

went through Heysen Boulevard area yesterday and my god the population is tripling fast and theres no freeways or trains and minimal infrastructure gonna get messay out there

a track to balhanna, really whats the point, from bridgewater the train should go through hahndorf, totness then mount barker, then to outer mount barker

girlfriend had one word...."monorail" to city haha

[Eurostar]

How about a bus and high occupancy vehicle lane during peak hour on the SE freeway?

Backed up with surveillance cameras this would decongest the freeway and benefit people willing to use public transport.

We could have a high speed bus. There's a proposal in this thread to put an O-Bahn on the SE freeway and I don't think it's as silly as it sounds. https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/fo ... =17&t=6340

Short term:

I propose Bus lane from South Terrace to Greenhill Road, B Light/queue jump at junctions, HV Lane on freeway.

Long term:

Busway tunnel between City and Glen Osmond, then busway along median of freeway with bus stations at Glen Osmond, Crafers, Stirling, Verdun, Hahndorf

[Spotto]

Short term:

I propose Bus lane from South Terrace to Greenhill Road, B Light/queue jump at junctions, HV Lane on freeway.

Long term:

Busway tunnel between City and Glen Osmond, then busway along median of freeway with bus stations at Glen Osmond, Crafers, Stirling, Verdun, Hahndorf

There was a guy at the SATAG forum who suggested a busway tunnel underneath Glen Osmond Road too, citing that the O-Bahn tunnel shows that it's possible and useful. The O-Bahn tunnel was 650m long, cut and cover, and mostly constructed under open parklands, a similar tunnel for Glen Osmond Road would be up to 4.5km long with the only free corridor beneath Glen Osmond Road itself requiring either massive property acquisition to build a cut-and-cover tunnel away from the road (at which point you might as well just use acquisition to widen Glen Osmond Road and add bus lanes instead of digging) or digging up the road itself to build the tunnel directly beneath. The O-Bahn tunnel took 2 years, Glen Osmond Road is seven times that length and with no easy corridor available.

A bus tunnel for Glen Osmond Road is a massive pie in the sky.

[claybro]

What is it with Adelaide people and obsession with buses? A bus tunnel to Glen Osmond? Buses are still extremely limited in their capacity in comparison to trains, and still clog roads at their destination.. unless you were to also proposea bus tunnel in the CBD and longer buses. In the end it would be just as cheap to straighten a section of the hills rail, and get some faster VLocity type trains that can sprint up the hill faster than a bus.

[how good is he]

Any ideas on getting a line re-established and/or a solution for this situation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Lof ... ay_station.
Would then a big park and ride at say Stirling, Bridgewater etc be a better solution?

[Spotto]

Any ideas on getting a line re-established and/or a solution for this situation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Lof ... ay_station.
Would then a big park and ride at say Stirling, Bridgewater etc be a better solution?

Mount Lofty station has a decent former rail yard (currently playing home to concrete sleepers and ballast) that could be turned into an adequately-sized carpark, and that's not including the gravel "front garden" of the station building bordered by a picket fence. There's also on-street parallel parking with room to add more.

Bridgewater station could potentially fit a modest little carpark on the northern side of the former yard (the southern side is being sold for development), but that would depend on how much space the rebuilt platforms would take up.

Aldgate station is the best candidate to be the "main" station for the area. It's centrally located, has the best connections (two adjacent bus stops that combined see most of the bus routes in the area pass through), and if it acquired the gas storage depot immediately north of the station it would make room for an equivalent carpark to Mount Lofty and/or a proper bus interchange. There's a gravel park n ride at Stop 43 Mount Barker Road which is a 2 minute bus ride to the stops next to Aldgate station, and apparently short-term parking is also available according to a sign at Aldgate Bus Depot (Stop 44 Mount Barker Road).

[PD2/20]

What is it with Adelaide people and obsession with buses? A bus tunnel to Glen Osmond? Buses are still extremely limited in their capacity in comparison to trains, and still clog roads at their destination.. unless you were to also proposea bus tunnel in the CBD and longer buses. In the end it would be just as cheap to straighten a section of the hills rail, and get some faster VLocity type trains that can sprint up the hill faster than a bus.

The Hills! The gradient of the Freeway from Glen Osmond to Crafers is about 1 in 14 which can be coped by buses. Beyond Crafers to Mt Barker the Freeway undulates with gradients between 1 in 25 and 1 in 20. The current rail line with its circuitous route through Eden Hills was engineered to give a continuous gradent of 1 in 45 which is about the maximum for heavy rail due to steel on steel adhesion problems. As previously indicated in this thread, straightening the line would shorten the distance but make the gradient unsuitable for heavy rail!

Although trains have a greater capacity per formation than buses or light rail, it turns out the tare weight also increases in proportion. A 4000 3-car electric has a total capacity of 540 and tare weight of 137T, a Flexity tram a capacity of 179 at 40T and a typical articulated bus a capacity of ~90 at ~18T. Rubber on bitumen gives better adhesion han steel on steel.

[Bob]

My idea behind including Short South as an option for the ARTC line was it's shorter than the 2010 study's Southern Alignment and the GlobeLink study listed Short South as the most feasible of all options explored. Yes, it only investigated a road route, but if a new M1 were to be built along the Short South route it would at least be worth looking into the possibility of including a rail corridor with the road. If feasible, either a Short South Rail or the Southern Alignment would maintain southern rail freight access to Adelaide, would avoid the long detour of the Northern Rail Bypass, and crucially, keep a comparable journey time and distance to the present route.

The Northern Rail Bypass would be useful for freight that is moving from Melbourne and the South East to Darwin or Perth and not wanting to stop at Adelaide or Outer Harbor, with comparable journey times and distances between each end of the bypass along the current route and bypass route. But, for any freight traffic that wants to use Islington Terminal or unloading and port facilities at Outer Harbor, it's a significantly inconvenient detour which could risk actively discouraging rail freight from coming to Adelaide at all (the exact problem that advocates for the Northern Rail Bypass claim that the bypass would solve). Plus, perhaps most crucially, with a massive lack of support from the industry that is meant to use it, I can't see the Northern Rail Bypass happening.

If you're a rail operator or a customer using rail to transport goods from Melbourne, the Riverland (if rail ever returned) or the South East into Adelaide and you were told that the commute between Monarto South and Islington was increasing from some 90km to around 190km, paired with with increased carrying costs for the customer and increased track access fees for the operator, would you still want to use rail to move your product to Adelaide?

Spotto – just to clarify, are you suggesting one of these two options?

(1) A new rail line following the SEF from the Bridgewater area to Mt Barker removing Verdun, Balhannah, Mt Barker Junction and Littlehampton completely?

(2) A new rail line to follow a new Short South M1 route, if so where do you propose this would connect to the existing rail line both ends as this would likely remove Bridgewater, Aldgate, Mt Lofty and Belair completely in addition to the sections in option (1) above, and if you double as the ARTC line you get back to scheduling issues unless you have many passing loops, and how much tunneling would be required, and the route would have to be double stacking container proof?


BTW - I still think the aim to start the exercise should be asking the question how a one-hour rail journey from Mt Barker to ARS on the current line can be implemented, what would need to be done and at what cost – if the review came back and said not possible from an engineering point of view even with any rail corridor modifications/upgrades to meet that sort of schedule, then these other options certainly could come into play.

On a side not it is becoming obvious the debate around (as already evident in this forum thread so early in the piece), if the stops in between on the existing line are important of not? For example would an express only stopping once at Belair to connect to Adelaide Metro services be palatable? Obviously less stopping reducing travel time, but what potential passenger numbers miss out? Then there's the question, will the Stirling/Aldgate demographic warm to train travel or is this about dealing with Mt Barker’s future growth and ensuring that is the priority? What is the full population potential for the geographic city / development limit of Mt Barker – is it 50K,75K,100K? Maybe someone on here knows the answer to that, then what would be the projected rail passenger numbers against that trend?

[SBD]

My idea behind including Short South as an option for the ARTC line was it's shorter than the 2010 study's Southern Alignment and the GlobeLink study listed Short South as the most feasible of all options explored. Yes, it only investigated a road route, but if a new M1 were to be built along the Short South route it would at least be worth looking into the possibility of including a rail corridor with the road. If feasible, either a Short South Rail or the Southern Alignment would maintain southern rail freight access to Adelaide, would avoid the long detour of the Northern Rail Bypass, and crucially, keep a comparable journey time and distance to the present route.

The Northern Rail Bypass would be useful for freight that is moving from Melbourne and the South East to Darwin or Perth and not wanting to stop at Adelaide or Outer Harbor, with comparable journey times and distances between each end of the bypass along the current route and bypass route. But, for any freight traffic that wants to use Islington Terminal or unloading and port facilities at Outer Harbor, it's a significantly inconvenient detour which could risk actively discouraging rail freight from coming to Adelaide at all (the exact problem that advocates for the Northern Rail Bypass claim that the bypass would solve). Plus, perhaps most crucially, with a massive lack of support from the industry that is meant to use it, I can't see the Northern Rail Bypass happening.

If you're a rail operator or a customer using rail to transport goods from Melbourne, the Riverland (if rail ever returned) or the South East into Adelaide and you were told that the commute between Monarto South and Islington was increasing from some 90km to around 190km, paired with with increased carrying costs for the customer and increased track access fees for the operator, would you still want to use rail to move your product to Adelaide?

Spotto – just to clarify, are you suggesting one of these two options?

(1) A new rail line following the SEF from the Bridgewater area to Mt Barker removing Verdun, Balhannah, Mt Barker Junction and Littlehampton completely?

(2) A new rail line to follow a new Short South M1 route, if so where do you propose this would connect to the existing rail line both ends as this would likely remove Bridgewater, Aldgate, Mt Lofty and Belair completely in addition to the sections in option (1) above, and if you double as the ARTC line you get back to scheduling issues unless you have many passing loops, and how much tunneling would be required, and the route would have to be double stacking container proof?


BTW - I still think the aim to start the exercise should be asking the question how a one-hour rail journey from Mt Barker to ARS on the current line can be implemented, what would need to be done and at what cost – if the review came back and said not possible from an engineering point of view even with any rail corridor modifications/upgrades to meet that sort of schedule, then these other options certainly could come into play.

On a side not it is becoming obvious the debate around (as already evident in this forum thread so early in the piece), if the stops in between on the existing line are important of not? For example would an express only stopping once at Belair to connect to Adelaide Metro services be palatable? Obviously less stopping reducing travel time, but what potential passenger numbers miss out? Then there's the question, will the Stirling/Aldgate demographic warm to train travel or is this about dealing with Mt Barker’s future growth and ensuring that is the priority? What is the full population potential for the geographic city / development limit of Mt Barker – is it 50K,75K,100K? Maybe someone on here knows the answer to that, then what would be the projected rail passenger numbers against that trend?

It looks like Mt Barker is planning for 55,000 by 2035. https://www.mountbarker.sa.gov.au/__dat ... -Final.pdf

The Advertiser quotes "Real estate expert and Business Mt Barker chairman James Sexton" who predicts Mount Barker could reach its forecast population of 56,000 by 2026. https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 853af2fc44 He also says that only 12% of the land rezoned in 2010 has been built on so far, but doesn't predict a future population in the article.

[Spotto]

Spotto – just to clarify, are you suggesting one of these two options?

(1) A new rail line following the SEF from the Bridgewater area to Mt Barker removing Verdun, Balhannah, Mt Barker Junction and Littlehampton completely?

(2) A new rail line to follow a new Short South M1 route, if so where do you propose this would connect to the existing rail line both ends as this would likely remove Bridgewater, Aldgate, Mt Lofty and Belair completely in addition to the sections in option (1) above, and if you double as the ARTC line you get back to scheduling issues unless you have many passing loops, and how much tunneling would be required, and the route would have to be double stacking container proof?

As shown on the map I created, the passenger line to Mount Barker (orange and blue lines) would follow the current route with an optional deviation onto SEF between Bridgewater and Mount Barker.

I'm only suggesting a freight line following Short South as a potential alternative to the Northern Rail Bypass that would keep a shorter southern access point into Adelaide comparable to the current route length. If the freight industry's reception of the Northern Rail Bypass became more positive and there were guarantees that freight would still come to Adelaide instead of just continuing on and avoiding Adelaide completely or pushing more people towards using trucks, then of course I would support it as the better option.

On a Short South Alignment the new ARTC interstate line (purple line) would follow the current route to Eden Hills then deviate along Short South and then meet the SEF median somewhere before Mount Barker and use it through Mount Barker before rejoining the current line just before the Petwood loop. Alternatively, it would follow the Southern Alignment from the 2010 study, but the benefit of using Short South would be that the corridor would ideally already be in the process of being acquired for the new M1 (think the proposal to relocate the northern freight line alongside the Northern Connector).

Naturally, the new ARTC line would be built for double stacking, with appropriate upgrades on the remaining track between Adelaide and Eden Hills. Whether it's built double track or single track with passing loops is not a question I can answer. Tunneling is also an unknown, because using Short South for a rail alignment has not been investigated before.