Sensational-Adelaide.com

SBD wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:32 pm

claybro wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:24 pm

Although impossible to tell from such a vague map, it does not appear to be a proper loop, more of a u shaped through tunnel. It looks like a good option for Adelaide as it covers the east end as well, gives access to the Mall(east end) and yet avoids the pitfalls as discussed of a circular loop. As for Adelaide station, I believe the underground will be a different station, but adjacent to the existing station linked by an underground walkway, as someone mentioned, similar to the Perth setup. I can say it is quite a walk via the underground link from Perth surface station to Perth underground and they don't really feel linked. I think in Adelaides case a station directly under north Terrace and linking via the existing pedestrian underpass would be a much better setup.

It looks like it supports loop services from/to the south, and probably can handle north-south through services, but others would generally be at the existing station. north and northwest services from Adelaide would be odd if they could be on either ex-Seaford services on the loop or terminated services from the far end of the station.

I can't work out from the map where any underground station(s) in the city would be, either.

Goodsy wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:20 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:32 pm

claybro wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:24 pm

Although impossible to tell from such a vague map, it does not appear to be a proper loop, more of a u shaped through tunnel. It looks like a good option for Adelaide as it covers the east end as well, gives access to the Mall(east end) and yet avoids the pitfalls as discussed of a circular loop. As for Adelaide station, I believe the underground will be a different station, but adjacent to the existing station linked by an underground walkway, as someone mentioned, similar to the Perth setup. I can say it is quite a walk via the underground link from Perth surface station to Perth underground and they don't really feel linked. I think in Adelaides case a station directly under north Terrace and linking via the existing pedestrian underpass would be a much better setup.

It looks like it supports loop services from/to the south, and probably can handle north-south through services, but others would generally be at the existing station. north and northwest services from Adelaide would be odd if they could be on either ex-Seaford services on the loop or terminated services from the far end of the station.

I can't work out from the map where any underground station(s) in the city would be, either.

Adelaide Railway Station, Hindmarsh Square, Victoria Square and a possible fourth somewhere near West Terrace

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:18 pm

Grote Street is probably wide enough that they can construct a cut and cover tunnel in the middle of the road without completely cutting off traffic.

Regardless of how the tunnel is constructed, the Gawler and Outer Harbor lines need to be electrified first. I can't imagine DMUs running through the tunnels too often.

ml69 wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:42 pm

Remember that map was from the ITLUP plan of 2013, and was very much a conceptual "sketch" of a possible route.

When things get more serious and detailed planning to support a business case occurs, I believe a shorter alignment with fewer CBD stations will prevail.

Why? COST. Underground rail lines and underground stations are HORRENDOUSLY EXPENSIVE.

As an example, Auckland's City Rail Link tunnel project is 3.4km long, with 3 new underground stations to be built. Cost = $3.4Billion. Brisbane's Cross River Rail project has a 5.9km tunnel, with 4 new underground stations to be built. Cost = $5.4Billion.

Therefore each underground station costs approx $400-600M (depending on construction technique used). Rail tunnels with ventilation systems, train control systems etc also set you back approx $400-600M per kilometre.

So the U-shaped rail tunnel option (with 4 stations and approx 4km of rail tunnel) could cost anywhere between $3-5 Billion. Do you really think the SA government could fund this anytime before, say, 2040?

However, with a shorter alignment straight down King William St then turning down Grote St would make a 2.8km tunnel, perhaps with only 1 underground station at the Currie/Grenfell intersection with KW St, would make it a $2 Billion project and far more likely to get the business case approved.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:25 pm

Why wouldn't you run Outer Harbour through as well? If you're going to do it, do it properly.

TorrensSA wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:12 pm

Outer Harbor going through the loop would be hard, because where dos it go after? Can you run diesel trains through the tunnel? Belair (and Tonsley) would be the logical choice if all lines get electrified. You could easily run 20 tph in each direction so all trains could run through. The numbers are roughly Seaford / Tonsley 12 tph, Belair 4 tph, Gawler 8 tph and OH / Grange 8 tph. So you have 16 tph in each direction at the moment. With better signalling you could run up to 30 tph, so this leaves plenty of room fo future expansion. This is assuming a tunnel with two lines. Services could be Gawler to Seaford, Grange / Port Dock to Tonsley (Flinders) and Outer Harbour to Belair, it doesn't really matter there will be a lot of turn backs at Mile End / ARS yards.