Sensational-Adelaide.com

Rubberman the research I referred to above compared the OBahn with tram systems across the World, the Glenelg line wasn't even considered.

Which systems are you talking about Monotone? I mean for all I know, do these systems include the Tram Museum at St Kilda? No joke, that is faster than some standard supposedly modern systems. Like I said, some interurbans over 100 years ago clocked over 80kph...if those figures you quoted can't beat that, then it boils down to management decision rather than system capability.

Aidan wrote:

rubberman wrote:LOL! And the price we paid for the Citadis (Two Birneys and a bath) is not throwing money at it? Or signals?

Throwing money at stuff has not been a problem as far as the evidence to date has shown.

No, we have not thrown money at that problem. Our existing trams are off the shelf designs - if we want something capable of 100km/h, it's likely to cost much more. At the time we acquired the trams, there was a shortage of tram manufacturing capacity. Now there's a surplus.

Aidan, at the time we bought the Citadis - we still had the H cars. They ran in Adelaide from 1929, so a couple more years out of about 80 would not have rocked the boat. So plenty of money was spent.

Now, there is a good reason why Citadis and Flexity type trams would have a problem at speed. Just look at the bogies and the suspended bits and you can use your structural skills to work out what the problem is in purely descriptive terms.

Next, go look at a tram such as the Skoda 15T and do the same exercise. You will see that the Citadis/Flexity model and the S15T setups are so fundamentally different, and that the speed limiting problems of the former just don't exist with the S15T. That is, someone has thrown money at the problem and is producing a tram that if it is not capable of 100 kph (and I'd be surprised if it were not), then is certainly within cooee of it. Oh, and btw is still cheaper than we paid for the Citadis.

Apart from which, I was really getting at running at service speeds of 80kph realistically.

It's ironic though....

The Speedos on the current fleet of Trams go just over 100km/h....so why can't that be taken advantage of?

What are the actual reasons as to why there is a speed restriction on the Glenelg Line? Are there sections where faster speeds would be allowed?

PS, perhaps the last two pages or so should be moved to a O-Bahn/Tram thread

I don't know how you could even go more than 80km/h, the stops are so close together

Sent from my RM-821_im_mea3_306 using Board Express

Jim, this thread has gone way off topic.

The reference to 100kph (or 80) was originally in respect of the O-Bahn and speeds that light rail could do on it with those O-Bahn spacings.

That's not to say that the present cars could not be driven a little more to their potential, nor that tramcars with higher potential (and lower cost) could not have been purchased...but that is history.

rubberman wrote:Jim, this thread has gone way off topic.

Yeah it has, I thought that this thread was supposed to be about REGIONAL rail transport etc.

Yes, it's a sensitive topic as people would rather not talking about it. All to easy to ignore a problem than deal with it unfortunately.

Yes. Sadly that is the case

The Government are afraid people might start moving back out to the Country.

There was a crapload of new houses being built in Blyth (about 10 mins drive west of Clare), with Suburban-sized blocks (where's the vomit smiley?)

Anyway, I was bored one day and went for a drive and chilled there for a bit, and one of the new locals asked me where the local or nearest railway station was and how often the trains ran. His eyes went *THHIIIIS* wide when I told him that while there was a Railway station, there were no trains and no tracks. He was very disappointed as he also worked in Adelaide a few times a week and didn't want to take his car all the time.

It is no secret that when moving to a new or already established area, the first thing you would look for, other than local shops, would be for the local train station.

Heardy,

Have you ever read the book by Reece Jennings on Commissioner Webb?

In that book, Jennings outlines the history of the development of the country lines of the South Australian Railways.

Jennings outlines how the parochialism of early South Australian Governments led to lines being laid on the very very cheap to destinations that never ever had a hope of providing enough customers to fill a carriage (in some instances), let alone a full train. Of course, that meant that train speeds were severely limited, as well as the loads per train. The end point of which was a network of lines going through routes that were doomed to failure as soon as roads were opened and automobiles past the Model T stage took to the highway. As a prime example, why would anyone put the major link to Melbourne through the highest part of the Mt Lofty Ranges?

If rail infrastructure to the country were ever to be feasible, it would have to be looked at totally independently of most of the previous rights-of-way (much as the new railway to Darwin had almost no direct relevance to the previous Ghan or Northern Australian Railway routes).

Whether such a network could be made economically viable is another matter, but I guess one could not make an accurate economic assessment until new routes, rolling stock and travel times were thought about.

rubberman wrote:Heardy,

Have you ever read the book by Reece Jennings on Commissioner Webb?

In that book, Jennings outlines the history of the development of the country lines of the South Australian Railways.

Jennings outlines how the parochialism of early South Australian Governments led to lines being laid on the very very cheap to destinations that never ever had a hope of providing enough customers to fill a carriage (in some instances), let alone a full train. Of course, that meant that train speeds were severely limited, as well as the loads per train. The end point of which was a network of lines going through routes that were doomed to failure as soon as roads were opened and automobiles past the Model T stage took to the highway.

Were the early railways actually designed for passenger trains? I thought their primary purpose was freight, in which case building them as cheaply as possible was quite sensible.

As a prime example, why would anyone put the major link to Melbourne through the highest part of the Mt Lofty Ranges?

Because they devised a route that wasn't too steep and was shorter than any other alternative. And in those days they didn't have the Islington terminal - the main destination for freight was the Mile End goods yard.

If rail infrastructure to the country were ever to be feasible, it would have to be looked at totally independently of most of the previous rights-of-way (much as the new railway to Darwin had almost no direct relevance to the previous Ghan or Northern Australian Railway routes).

Are you sure about it had almost no direct relevance? I thought it incorporated quite a lot of NAR route. Likewise, it would probably make sense to incorporate a substantial part of route of the old Sedan line into the route of the Adelaide Hills Freight Bypass line.

Whether such a network could be made economically viable is another matter, but I guess one could not make an accurate economic assessment until new routes, rolling stock and travel times were thought about.

Where the trackbed exists, it would usually make sense to use it.

Aidan, I heartily recommend you read the book I suggested by Dr Jennings. It is well researched and heavily referenced to official papers concerning the construction and politics thereof of South Australia's railways. I have no doubt that with the information provided, you would hesitate to use the words 'quite sensible' in connection with any of the routes built by the SAR in the country.

The route through the hills not too steep? Really? Again, I direct you to Dr Jennings' excellent account of the history of the SAR. If there was anything related to optimisation of a route through the hills, it would have been purely by chance. Having said that, if you are possessed of evidence that this was, in fact, the optimal route from either an engineering or economic point of view, I should be delighted to see it.

I was involved (tangentially) in quite a bit of the work for the route of the Alice Springs - Darwin railway for a period when I worked out of SA (even received an official invitation to the opening, gold leaf and all. LOL). Certainly, the route of the new railway had some relevance to the route of the old NAR. They both went north, for example. However, right of way or formation sharing was pretty coincidental where it happened - and that was mostly at choke points or very logical route alignments.

Finally, if the existing track bed is in the right location, and at the right level, of course it would make sense to use it. However, given that the original track beds for a lot of the country SAR lines were neither optimised economically nor engineering wise, nor would the economic nor transport needs of today be likely to be closely aligned of those of the late 1800s, what do you reckon the chances would be? For the line to Mt Gambier, maybe. For lines elsewhere, less so. The point I was making is that to use late 1800s alignments that were not even economically viable when they were built, is not a promising line of inquiry in my view. Rather better, plan for lines which are optimal economically and from an engineering point of view, and then if the routes so designed happened to chance across an old right of way, use it. However, to use previous rights of way unless they are very close to optimal economically is putting the cart before the horse imho.

Rubberman, i'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying most of the 1800's tracks bear no relevance as transport routes in modern SA?. If this is the case, I find it surprising, because driving on country roads, often stuck behind grain trucks, buses or other transports, the roads often travel almost identically the route of the disused train lines. These are everywhere, Mid North/Riverland/Mallee, Peninsuals etc.....Silos still exist on these disused lines. The hills line however is another matter, and rerouting freight should be a priority.

A couple of points, Claybro.

First, as an example, the construction of the Alice Springs - Darwin railway. The new line follows the general route of the old North Australia line and the Stuart Highway. In some places quite closely. However, if you look at the old line, it twists and turns and ups and downs along its length - basically to avoid as much cut and fill as possible to make construction cheap. These twists and turns and grade changes mean that the upper speed of the old line is quite low. The new line is much much straighter, and grades much longer. So even though the two lines are often close together, and cross each other now and again, there was no thought given to trying to use the original right of way or formation.

Second point. If you were going to open a line to Renmark, would you really imagine anyone travelling via the old route? Or that it could ever be made competitive with car travel? Or competitive with semis going down the Sturt Highway? Same same to Victor Harbor. Would you reinstate the line from Mt Barker, or look at extending from Noarlunga somehow? Methinks the latter, but that is immaterial in itself. My point was that one would not just immediately assume 'Lets rebuild the old line', rather, one would say: 'What is the best route to use, regardless of history?'