Sensational-Adelaide.com

The photo looks like Adelaide, it looks like the interchange roadway is where the light is and the TAFE is blocked from view by the car park structure and TTP would be on the right along with the interchange

The interchanges look fairly different compared to previous years!
The new Exceloos are almost open to public.
Info screens at Klemzig are now active in beta mode.
Old sign frames from 1980s are now painted green, some were modified (the top/middle sections on the taller ones were cut off).
Bike cages are now complete.

Any photos?

Interesting article in today's In Daily re problems with O-Bahn track.
Track was closed from first bus on Saturday to approx 4pm yesterday between Klemzig Interchange and Park Terrace to replace sections of the track.
http://www.indaily.com.au

I'll say it once again - make it a train line already!

[Shuz] wrote:I'll say it once again - make it a train line already!

Are you going to hold back the nimbys when you announce that you have to remove most of Linear Park for a track bed?

Norman wrote:Any photos?

Check my sets on my Flickr account!

I saw the track was blocked off on the weekend! Don't they do regular maintenance?

Putting a train on the same path will not work! it will involve all passengers to interchange from their buses from any one of the interchanges after they exit the train.

monotonehell wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:I'll say it once again - make it a train line already!

Are you going to hold back the nimbys when you announce that you have to remove most of Linear Park for a track bed?

Were it to be turned into a train line, the trackbed would hardly be any different to what it currently is. But converting it to a railway would be much more expensive and much more disruptive, whereas keeping it as an O-bahn would merely involve replacing some old prefabricated concrete segments with new ones.

Aidan wrote:

monotonehell wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:I'll say it once again - make it a train line already!

Are you going to hold back the nimbys when you announce that you have to remove most of Linear Park for a track bed?

Were it to be turned into a train line, the trackbed would hardly be any different to what it currently is. But converting it to a railway would be much more expensive and much more disruptive, whereas keeping it as an O-bahn would merely involve replacing some old prefabricated concrete segments with new ones.

Since most dual line railways require a 15m corridor, it would need to be wider than the OBahn's 6.2m width. You might be able to shoehorn a light rail corridor into that - the Glenelg corridor looks around the same width.

Add to that the extra work required to drive footings into the soft soils along the route to support a railway line, to replace all the bridges and to straighten some of the corners, and the extra power required to get up the hill, makes the cost very prohibitive.

monotonehell wrote:.
Add to that the extra work required to drive footings into the soft soils along the route to support a railway line, to replace all the bridges and to straighten some of the corners, and the extra power required to get up the hill, makes the cost very prohibitive.

why would they need to replace the bridges. The actual concrete tracks are a fair way off the ground. Take this away, put the sleepers on the track bed - would the height be any different to a tunnelled train line now? If so, just dig out the bottom of track bed by half a metre under the bridges. Corners are fine, don't need to be straightened. If its too hard, turn it into the light rail system such as Edmonton and Calgary, where the trams are tripled together to allow a lot of passengers. This could then connect with the Glenelg tramline, and get up the Hope Valley hill easily

Get used to the idea that it will be an O-Bahn busway for a long long time to come.
No Government present or future is going to spend millions changing it to Light Rail,and have stated that many times.
Given the parlous state of our finances,it ain't going to happen now or in the future.Bus is far more flexible and efficient.

jk1237 wrote:

monotonehell wrote:.
Add to that the extra work required to drive footings into the soft soils along the route to support a railway line, to replace all the bridges and to straighten some of the corners, and the extra power required to get up the hill, makes the cost very prohibitive.

why would they need to replace the bridges. The actual concrete tracks are a fair way off the ground. Take this away, put the sleepers on the track bed - would the height be any different to a tunnelled train line now? If so, just dig out the bottom of track bed by half a metre under the bridges. Corners are fine, don't need to be straightened. If its too hard, turn it into the light rail system such as Edmonton and Calgary, where the trams are tripled together to allow a lot of passengers. This could then connect with the Glenelg tramline, and get up the Hope Valley hill easily

You used the word "just".

The bridges and footing were designed to hold up a concrete track and buses. A railway and trains are much heavier (even "light" rail isn't that light).

The entire corridor would need to be rebuilt with deeper and more solid footings. A concrete track is a whole different engineering exercise to a metal rail.

The corners on the current track are too tight for a railway at speed. The metal on metal grinding noises would be terrible.

I hadn't even considered where the route go under things, I think they built them with enough space for overhead trolley power intended for buses, that miiight be enough room for train and power system?

The engineering reasons the OBahn was selected over a light rail system still hold true today.

Wasn't one of the benefits of the O-Bahn is that it required a much narrower corridor as opposed to rail?

monotonehell wrote:
The engineering reasons the OBahn was selected over a light rail system still hold true today.

Were we ever given independent engineering advice on this?

After all, the incoming Liberal government wasn't going to say that the Obahn was just as costly - its whole point was that it was saying it would be cheaper. So nobody in the PS was going to contradict them, and who outside was going to have enough information or resources to do an in-depth study.

You might be right, just that I don't recall an independent study ever confirming it. If there is one, it would be interesting to have a look and see what the implications might be for upgrading to light rail.

In any case, the O-Bahn predecessor (in planning terms) was the NEAPTR proposal for a light railway. So it was certainly feasible and practicable.