Sensational-Adelaide.com

Aidan wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:17 pm

It would make more sense for the Outer Harbour and Belair lines to be converted to light rail. The economics have shifted from favouring heavy rail to favouring light rail. If we widened our light rail system to 2.65m the advantage would be greater, but that's something for another thread. What I will say here, though, is that light rail still needs to be fast; if it's too slow, passengers lose interest.

No it doesn't make sense at all.

If we are going to build an underground loop, it would make sense to run as many lines as practical through it. Granted, this means electrification. It is the fastest journey.

By converting to light rail, the Outer Harbor and Belair lines get caught in the CBD traffic. Add 10-15 mins journey time compared to running as heavy rail through a tunnel.

1NEEDS2POST wrote:

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.

This is thinking outside the box: all railcars are fitted with Scharfenberg couplers that take almost no time to couple/uncouple. Outer Harbor, Grange and Belair can be DMUs. Coming from the north, at ARS, a DMU couples to the back of an EMU and gets towed through the tunnel with their engines off. At Goodwood, they uncouple and go their different ways.

My preferred solution is just four tracks in the tunnel and run EMUs.

Alternatively alternatively, de-cab the 3000 class rail cars, remove their diesel generators and add a pantograph.
Make permanently coupled 3 car sets with two 3100 class rail cars which can run either as diesel-electric or as straight electric.

The 3000-class railcars won't be going electric anytime soon, their diesel motors have just been replaced. And I still believe that the Outer Harbor and Belair lines should remain as heavy rail.

It's just an idea I had. I would imagine that a replacement for the 3000s would be sought within the next 10 years (the oldest are 31 years old this year)

aaronjameslange wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:37 pm

The glenelg tramline used to terminate at victoria square, about 4-5 city blocks away from rundle mall and north terrace. As soon as it was extended to city west usage skyrocketed. Why? Because now it went somewhere that people actually wanted to go. Theres no point having a cheap and cheerful underground loop with only one station if its not conveniently located. The mall and vic sq/ central markets would need to be serviced at minimum. I live in gawler and dont shop in the mall as parking is expensive. Im also not going to carry my christmas shopping and kids from the current adelaide station, nor transfer to a tram to get to the mall. Put a station under the myer centre similar to QVB in sydney and now rundle mall is far more accessible.

I totally agree with what you're saying ... my suggestion of one underground station at KW St and Currie/Grenfell corner would have 3 separate entrances to expand the pedestrian catchment zone. The entrances would be connected to the station by short pedestrian tunnels with airport-like travelators. This makes the pedestrian tunnels an easy walk, and a heck of a lot cheaper than a second or third underground station. I've seen this arrangement work very effectively in Asian MRT stations.

The location of the entrances would be:

1. Vic Square, directly adjacent to the tram stop (making transfers and Central Market access a breeze)
2. Topham Mall (Currie St side). Serving the western side of the CBD, this is located at the epicentre of the Market to Riverbank link.
3. Gawler Place (cnr Grenfell St). Serving the eastern side of the CBD. Very conveniently located, it might even spur the redevelopment of the full length of Gawler Place to Wakefield St.

ml69 wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:35 pm

The location of the entrances would be:

1. Vic Square, directly adjacent to the tram stop (making transfers and Central Market access a breeze)
2. Topham Mall (Currie St side). Serving the western side of the CBD, this is located at the epicentre of the Market to Riverbank link.
3. Gawler Place (cnr Grenfell St). Serving the eastern side of the CBD. Very conveniently located, it might even spur the redevelopment of the full length of Gawler Place to Wakefield St.

I'd have thought the ideal locations would be

1. Adjacent to the existing railway station (with exits through the station building and station arcade, plus east and west)
2. Hindmarsh Square, with exits for Rundle Mall and East End
3. SW corner of Victoria Square (ideally, finally build the new courts buildings and repurpose the Samuel Way building as a station)

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:23 pm

1. Adjacent to the existing railway station (with exits through the station building and station arcade, plus east and west)
2. Hindmarsh Square, with exits for Rundle Mall and East End
3. SW corner of Victoria Square (ideally, finally build the new courts buildings and repurpose the Samuel Way building as a station)

From memory these were the intended locations though I cant find the original concept I saw now. Definitely logical choices.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:23 pm

ml69 wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:35 pm

The location of the entrances would be:

1. Vic Square, directly adjacent to the tram stop (making transfers and Central Market access a breeze)
2. Topham Mall (Currie St side). Serving the western side of the CBD, this is located at the epicentre of the Market to Riverbank link.
3. Gawler Place (cnr Grenfell St). Serving the eastern side of the CBD. Very conveniently located, it might even spur the redevelopment of the full length of Gawler Place to Wakefield St.

I'd have thought the ideal locations would be

1. Adjacent to the existing railway station (with exits through the station building and station arcade, plus east and west)
2. Hindmarsh Square, with exits for Rundle Mall and East End
3. SW corner of Victoria Square (ideally, finally build the new courts buildings and repurpose the Samuel Way building as a station)

He's talking about Vic Square, Topham Mall and Gawler Place being the entrances to the one station on the corner of KW St and Currie.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:23 pm

ml69 wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:35 pm

The location of the entrances would be:

1. Vic Square, directly adjacent to the tram stop (making transfers and Central Market access a breeze)
2. Topham Mall (Currie St side). Serving the western side of the CBD, this is located at the epicentre of the Market to Riverbank link.
3. Gawler Place (cnr Grenfell St). Serving the eastern side of the CBD. Very conveniently located, it might even spur the redevelopment of the full length of Gawler Place to Wakefield St.

I'd have thought the ideal locations would be

1. Adjacent to the existing railway station (with exits through the station building and station arcade, plus east and west)
2. Hindmarsh Square, with exits for Rundle Mall and East End
3. SW corner of Victoria Square (ideally, finally build the new courts buildings and repurpose the Samuel Way building as a station)

He's talking about Vic Square, Topham Mall and Gawler Place being the entrances to the one station on the corner of KW St and Currie.

Goodsy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:26 pm

He's talking about Vic Square, Topham Mall and Gawler Place being the entrances to the one station on the corner of KW St and Currie.

Why would you have a station located there, when its only about 300M from the existing North terrace station?

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:01 pm

My preferred solution is just four tracks in the tunnel and run EMUs.

Sydney's loop is just 2 tracks and could theoretically handle 20tph each direction. 2 tracks will be more than enough for all of our heavy rail lines, provided the platforms have enough space for passengers for multiple destinations to not obstruct the most immediate train. The only reason ARS needs to be 9 tracks is because it's a terminus, so trains are often there for 10 or more minutes before they depart again.

DMUs can most definitely be used in tunnels, but they require significantly different (read more expensive) ventilation infrastructure to handle the diesel fumes in the tunnel. Our tunnels will almost certainly be EMU only. Having said that, by the time this happens, a decision should made as to whether the Belair and OH/Grange/Port Dock lines will be electrified or tram-ified. I'm still line ball on calling what they'll do with either of them.

Westside wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:52 pm

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:01 pm

My preferred solution is just four tracks in the tunnel and run EMUs.

Sydney's loop is just 2 tracks and could theoretically handle 20tph each direction. 2 tracks will be more than enough for all of our heavy rail lines, provided the platforms have enough space for passengers for multiple destinations to not obstruct the most immediate train. The only reason ARS needs to be 9 tracks is because it's a terminus, so trains are often there for 10 or more minutes before they depart again.

DMUs can most definitely be used in tunnels, but they require significantly different (read more expensive) ventilation infrastructure to handle the diesel fumes in the tunnel. Our tunnels will almost certainly be EMU only. Having said that, by the time this happens, a decision should made as to whether the Belair and OH/Grange/Port Dock lines will be electrified or tram-ified. I'm still line ball on calling what they'll do with either of them.

One factor might be the difference in cost of tunnels for each mode. If you factor in the cost of vehicles and overhead works it might be somewhat cheaper to tramify...BUT there's something to be said for keeping the trains at a size which has economies of scale. However, if the government was ever seriously looking at a tunnel (aside from a few lines on a PDF), then if there's a big difference in the cost of the tunnel, then it could well tip towards tramifying the OH/Port and Hills lines. I have no idea what that difference might be, so I haven't got a real opinion either way.

ml69 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:55 pm

Aidan wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:17 pm

It would make more sense for the Outer Harbour and Belair lines to be converted to light rail. The economics have shifted from favouring heavy rail to favouring light rail. If we widened our light rail system to 2.65m the advantage would be greater, but that's something for another thread. What I will say here, though, is that light rail still needs to be fast; if it's too slow, passengers lose interest.

No it doesn't make sense at all.

If we are going to build an underground loop, it would make sense to run as many lines as practical through it. Granted, this means electrification. It is the fastest journey.

By converting to light rail, the Outer Harbor and Belair lines get caught in the CBD traffic. Add 10-15 mins journey time compared to running as heavy rail through a tunnel.

You could run the light rail through the tunnel. Outer Harbor to Belair. Cheaper than heavy rail, and likely faster if operated properly. How much cheaper, and how much faster is the billion dollar question, though. Having said that, if the government were to consider tunnels seriously (I mean a bit more than some lines on a pdf and incoherent mumbles about "...the future, something..something...Federal funding..something..something...feasibility studies...something..." ), then for the several billion dollar cost, it would be almost certain to look at both light and heavy rail options. I don't think anyone has enough information to know how a realistic evaluation would turn out.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:41 pm

You could run the light rail through the tunnel. Outer Harbor to Belair. Cheaper than heavy rail, and likely faster if operated properly. How much cheaper, and how much faster is the billion dollar question, though. Having said that, if the government were to consider tunnels seriously (I mean a bit more than some lines on a pdf and incoherent mumbles about "...the future, something..something...Federal funding..something..something...feasibility studies...something..." ), then for the several billion dollar cost, it would be almost certain to look at both light and heavy rail options. I don't think anyone has enough information to know how a realistic evaluation would turn out.

I think the dual operation conundrum was put to bed with the failure of the concept for the OH line.-It died off very quietly almost as soon as it was proposed. That being the case, there is absolutely no way they will have dual running of heavy and light rail through the tunnel. As the north/south lines are by far the most important as far as connection, I don't see any way we would ever see light rail running through a CBD underground. OH may be electrified, but I think it will still terminate at Adelaide station, unless the can link it up with the Flinders line. Then there is Belair..., on its own, heavy rail, single line in sections, diesel mode, difficult to electrify without altering the tunnels, or having dedicated railcars that can run on battery power during the length of the tunnels...hmm-will it even exist in 30 years time?

The other good point about the city underground connector would be a better connection with a future North-East Rail Line (which will replace the O-Bahn). They could even do both in 15-20 years when the useful life of the O-Bahn expires.