Sensational-Adelaide.com

Norman wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 5:27 pm

Goodsy wrote:

Norman wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 10:45 pm

I think the Gawler Line will see many of the benefits electrification can bring since the stations are a bit more spread out and the track is straighter.

There are parts on the Seaford line that are rated at 110km/h, including near Oaklands and the extension beyond Noarlunga.

The Gawler eletrification should also come with some modest line upgrades like crossing loops and station removals. We should be aiming for 160kph for an express line

Remove Greenfields, Parafield Gardens, Chidda, Nurlutta, Elizabeth South

New station at the A20 overpass to replace Tambelin and Evanston stations

Remove Kudla and replace it with a new station at Gordon Rd

Crossing loops where needed

At this point in time, 160km/h is excessive for a city the size of Adelaide. The extra costs for track maintenance and rolling stock wouldn't stack up the benefits for the 5 or 6 express trains that run in each direction. If those centres of Salisbury, Elizabeth and so on become more dense then it might be a point of discussion.

Just on people discussing removing stations, where else had this occurred in Australia on a large scale? I know people keep talking about those two new train lines in Perth, but even in Perth their legacy train lines still have the same amount of stations they had 50, 60 years ago. Apart from outliers like Greenfields, Marino Rocks and Kudla I just don't see the point. All those other stations like Parafield Gardens and Elizabeth South serve communities that rely on the rail network. If you want to speed up some services there are other methods like express services. But don't remove stations just because it looks good on a map or a timetable.

If you want people to leave cars and take trains, you need to be able to at least make the same sort of average speeds that cars have.

So, for Adelaide iirc, that's about 50kph.

Any schedule speed less than that, forget about people shifting from cars to trains.

If you can't get the numbers of passengers up, then you simply can't get the economic justification for spending money on heavy rail.

The Outer Harbor and Hills line are particularly vulnerable here. For the passenger numbers and present speeds, light rail is cheaper and can service the stops. The only thing saving both services was the rail union and its influence with the Labor Government. If the railcars come up for replacement under a Liberal Government they'd certainly look at light rail to replace the heavy rail. It's vastly cheaper.

If, on the other hand, the Outer Harbor and Hills lines ran faster...or could run faster, so that more passengers were on board and light rail couldn't handle the loads, then heavy rail and electrification would be viable.

The point being that a timetable needs to look a whole lot better to justify heavy rail expenditures. Over the past few years, about $3bn has been spent on heavy rail, and it's a pitiful number of passengers per line compared to trams.

PeFe wrote:I am one of those people who favour closing stations, here is my list :

Gawler Line

Close North Adelaide as a train station (but keep and protect the heritage building)
Remove : Greenfields, Nurlutta, Womma, Kudla, Tamblin, and Gawler Oval.
A new station can be built between Muno Parra and Gawler if the land is developed in the future.

Outer Harbor

Remove : Woodville Park, Ethelton, Peterhead, Largs North, Midlunga.
Rebuild a new Glanville station just south of the current site.

Belair Line

Remove : Mile End, Torrens Park, Lynton, Coromandel.
Build new station near Springbank Road replacing Torrens Park and Lynton

Seaford Line

Remove : Emerson, Hove, Warradale (with a new station in between) and Marino Rocks.

Some of Adelaide stations are truly embarrassing...why does anyone think that a station like Torrens Park attracts people to public transport?
People want safety and basic comfort as they wait for the train. Sadly few Adelaide train stations qualify...

What is your choices of stations based on? A survey on Google Maps, gut feeling, riding the lines several times to determine where people are or are not getting on or boarding data?

What sort of amenities are missing on a station like Torrens Park or any other stations you're thinking of?

rubberman wrote:

Norman wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 5:27 pm

Goodsy wrote:
The Gawler eletrification should also come with some modest line upgrades like crossing loops and station removals. We should be aiming for 160kph for an express line

Remove Greenfields, Parafield Gardens, Chidda, Nurlutta, Elizabeth South

New station at the A20 overpass to replace Tambelin and Evanston stations

Remove Kudla and replace it with a new station at Gordon Rd

Crossing loops where needed

At this point in time, 160km/h is excessive for a city the size of Adelaide. The extra costs for track maintenance and rolling stock wouldn't stack up the benefits for the 5 or 6 express trains that run in each direction. If those centres of Salisbury, Elizabeth and so on become more dense then it might be a point of discussion.

Just on people discussing removing stations, where else had this occurred in Australia on a large scale? I know people keep talking about those two new train lines in Perth, but even in Perth their legacy train lines still have the same amount of stations they had 50, 60 years ago. Apart from outliers like Greenfields, Marino Rocks and Kudla I just don't see the point. All those other stations like Parafield Gardens and Elizabeth South serve communities that rely on the rail network. If you want to speed up some services there are other methods like express services. But don't remove stations just because it looks good on a map or a timetable.

If you want people to leave cars and take trains, you need to be able to at least make the same sort of average speeds that cars have.

So, for Adelaide iirc, that's about 50kph.

Any schedule speed less than that, forget about people shifting from cars to trains.

If you can't get the numbers of passengers up, then you simply can't get the economic justification for spending money on heavy rail.

The Outer Harbor and Hills line are particularly vulnerable here. For the passenger numbers and present speeds, light rail is cheaper and can service the stops. The only thing saving both services was the rail union and its influence with the Labor Government. If the railcars come up for replacement under a Liberal Government they'd certainly look at light rail to replace the heavy rail. It's vastly cheaper.

If, on the other hand, the Outer Harbor and Hills lines ran faster...or could run faster, so that more passengers were on board and light rail couldn't handle the loads, then heavy rail and electrification would be viable.

The point being that a timetable needs to look a whole lot better to justify heavy rail expenditures. Over the past few years, about $3bn has been spent on heavy rail, and it's a pitiful number of passengers per line compared to trams.

So let's speed them up by making some trains on the Outer Harbor line express services. Let the Grange Line service the inner suburbs instead. There are more practical solutions than just closing train stations down.

You're right when you say that train travel needs to be faster than driving. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the way you look at things) driving is far faster than the train outside of peak hour in many cities, especially Adelaide. This is when, in my opinion, the train is more about giving people the accessibility and alternative to driving a car for those who are not able to drive.

For what it's worth, in 2005/06 there were 9.35m train trips compared to 15.6m in 2018/19, including free travel.

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 6:32 pm

I am one of those people who favour closing stations, here is my list :

Gawler Line

Close North Adelaide as a train station (but keep and protect the heritage building)
Remove : Greenfields, Nurlutta, Womma, Kudla, Tamblin, and Gawler Oval.
A new station can be built between Muno Parra and Gawler if the land is developed in the future.

Outer Harbor

Remove : Woodville Park, Ethelton, Peterhead, Largs North, Midlunga.
Rebuild a new Glanville station just south of the current site.

Belair Line

Remove : Mile End, Torrens Park, Lynton, Coromandel.
Build new station near Springbank Road replacing Torrens Park and Lynton

Seaford Line

Remove : Emerson, Hove, Warradale (with a new station in between) and Marino Rocks.

Some of Adelaide stations are truly embarrassing...why does anyone think that a station like Torrens Park attracts people to public transport?
People want safety and basic comfort as they wait for the train. Sadly few Adelaide train stations qualify...

Finally someone agrees with me about Torrens Park

That station needs to be shut down and torn up asap. It wouldn't be a great loss.

Norman wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 8:35 pm

PeFe wrote:I am one of those people who favour closing stations, here is my list :

Gawler Line

Close North Adelaide as a train station (but keep and protect the heritage building)
Remove : Greenfields, Nurlutta, Womma, Kudla, Tamblin, and Gawler Oval.
A new station can be built between Muno Parra and Gawler if the land is developed in the future.

Outer Harbor

Remove : Woodville Park, Ethelton, Peterhead, Largs North, Midlunga.
Rebuild a new Glanville station just south of the current site.

Belair Line

Remove : Mile End, Torrens Park, Lynton, Coromandel.
Build new station near Springbank Road replacing Torrens Park and Lynton

Seaford Line

Remove : Emerson, Hove, Warradale (with a new station in between) and Marino Rocks.

Some of Adelaide stations are truly embarrassing...why does anyone think that a station like Torrens Park attracts people to public transport?
People want safety and basic comfort as they wait for the train. Sadly few Adelaide train stations qualify...

What is your choices of stations based on? A survey on Google Maps, gut feeling, riding the lines several times to determine where people are or are not getting on or boarding data?

What sort of amenities are missing on a station like Torrens Park or any other stations you're thinking of?

My choices were made around the fact these stations have low patronage (and probably will have well into the future), are too close to other stations that have significantly better patronage (probably because they are more of a "destination") or inconvenient location and/or terrible facilities.

A single bus shelter on a platform is not an inducement to use public transport. People expect some level of protection and comfort from the elements and a safe passage to the station, well lit streets, cctv on the platform.

And yes I have ridden all these lines many times (with the exception of the Belair line) Every time I have been on a train that stops at Mile End not one single passenger has got on......

Less stops equals faster trains (and maybe the ability to refurbish and promote station upgrades)

PeFe wrote:

Norman wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 8:35 pm

PeFe wrote:I am one of those people who favour closing stations, here is my list :

Gawler Line

Close North Adelaide as a train station (but keep and protect the heritage building)
Remove : Greenfields, Nurlutta, Womma, Kudla, Tamblin, and Gawler Oval.
A new station can be built between Muno Parra and Gawler if the land is developed in the future.

Outer Harbor

Remove : Woodville Park, Ethelton, Peterhead, Largs North, Midlunga.
Rebuild a new Glanville station just south of the current site.

Belair Line

Remove : Mile End, Torrens Park, Lynton, Coromandel.
Build new station near Springbank Road replacing Torrens Park and Lynton

Seaford Line

Remove : Emerson, Hove, Warradale (with a new station in between) and Marino Rocks.

Some of Adelaide stations are truly embarrassing...why does anyone think that a station like Torrens Park attracts people to public transport?
People want safety and basic comfort as they wait for the train. Sadly few Adelaide train stations qualify...

What is your choices of stations based on? A survey on Google Maps, gut feeling, riding the lines several times to determine where people are or are not getting on or boarding data?

What sort of amenities are missing on a station like Torrens Park or any other stations you're thinking of?

My choices were made around the fact these stations have low patronage (and probably will have well into the future), are too close to other stations that have significantly better patronage (probably because they are more of a "destination") or inconvenient location and/or terrible facilities.

A single bus shelter on a platform is not an inducement to use public transport. People expect some level of protection and comfort from the elements and a safe passage to the station, well lit streets, cctv on the platform.

And yes I have ridden all these lines many times (with the exception of the Belair line) Every time I have been on a train that stops at Mile End not one single passenger has got on......

Less stops equals faster trains (and maybe the ability to refurbish and promote station upgrades)

Thanks for your reply PeFe

From personal experience I will have to disagree with you on Mile End. During peak hour I see many school kids use the station for the local school. I also see a few people use the station at night that are using the train to get from the businesses and parks around Mile End to head south towards Seaford. I think upgrading the station along with an underground link under the CBD could make this station more viable, along with increased density and a safer pedestrian connection to the platform.

I also use the station myself to connect to the tram and Port Road buses (heading away from the CBD), along with accessing the West End.

I also think Torrens Park could use a better platform and shelter. I don't pass through there regularly and don't have access to patronage data, but I don't see a reason to close it down. It is within a fairly dense part of Adelaide (with many options to increase it even further, especially towards the west of the station and the empty land to the east) and is close to Scotch College.

Lynton Station is also part of the local community and I see it used quite well from when I have used the Belair Line. The station is well cared for under the Rail Care program, where the community adopts a station and can use government grants to improve the look of the station and it's surrounds. Given the terrain I don't think it would be a good idea to replace it with a station at Springbank Road (which is the old Clapham Station that has already been closed down).

I would love to see some actual passenger figures for the stations that are on my "hit list"....but its near impossible to find out unless you apply under the Freedom of Information Act (and pay the fee) as The advertiser did a few years to find how many people used the Adelaide Showground station in its first week of opening.

I would like to see all future South Australian governments be transparent with details like public transport patronage (and of course it is a disadvantage not having a "tap on/tap off" system to easily see the exact route)

Here's a radical idea to make people shift to trains: make it free. It may save the government money since they will be spending less on building and maintaining roads. Plus no need to enforce fares, no need to have fare terminals in trains.

Norman wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 5:27 pm

Goodsy wrote:

Norman wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 10:45 pm

I think the Gawler Line will see many of the benefits electrification can bring since the stations are a bit more spread out and the track is straighter.

There are parts on the Seaford line that are rated at 110km/h, including near Oaklands and the extension beyond Noarlunga.

The Gawler eletrification should also come with some modest line upgrades like crossing loops and station removals. We should be aiming for 160kph for an express line

Remove Greenfields, Parafield Gardens, Chidda, Nurlutta, Elizabeth South

New station at the A20 overpass to replace Tambelin and Evanston stations

Remove Kudla and replace it with a new station at Gordon Rd

Crossing loops where needed

At this point in time, 160km/h is excessive for a city the size of Adelaide. The extra costs for track maintenance and rolling stock wouldn't stack up the benefits for the 5 or 6 express trains that run in each direction. If those centres of Salisbury, Elizabeth and so on become more dense then it might be a point of discussion.

Just on people discussing removing stations, where else had this occurred in Australia on a large scale? I know people keep talking about those two new train lines in Perth, but even in Perth their legacy train lines still have the same amount of stations they had 50, 60 years ago. Apart from outliers like Greenfields, Marino Rocks and Kudla I just don't see the point. All those other stations like Parafield Gardens and Elizabeth South serve communities that rely on the rail network. If you want to speed up some services there are other methods like express services. But don't remove stations just because it looks good on a map or a timetable.

If the Hills bypass for goods trains gets built, then the ARTC line next to the Gawler line (from Adelaide to Dry Creek) will be mostly free. So if that happens, then a 160 km/h express train to Dry Creek would be possible and fairly inexpensive.

We wouldn't need to close any stations by having a local train and an express train. One train that's all stations (including North Adelaide) that terminates at Dry Creek, and another express train that's Adelaide, Dry Creek then all stations to Gawler Central.

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 10:14 pm

Here's a radical idea to make people shift to trains: make it free. It may save the government money since they will be spending less on building and maintaining roads. Plus no need to enforce fares, no need to have fare terminals in trains.

Norman wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 5:27 pm

Goodsy wrote:
The Gawler eletrification should also come with some modest line upgrades like crossing loops and station removals. We should be aiming for 160kph for an express line

Remove Greenfields, Parafield Gardens, Chidda, Nurlutta, Elizabeth South

New station at the A20 overpass to replace Tambelin and Evanston stations

Remove Kudla and replace it with a new station at Gordon Rd

Crossing loops where needed

At this point in time, 160km/h is excessive for a city the size of Adelaide. The extra costs for track maintenance and rolling stock wouldn't stack up the benefits for the 5 or 6 express trains that run in each direction. If those centres of Salisbury, Elizabeth and so on become more dense then it might be a point of discussion.

Just on people discussing removing stations, where else had this occurred in Australia on a large scale? I know people keep talking about those two new train lines in Perth, but even in Perth their legacy train lines still have the same amount of stations they had 50, 60 years ago. Apart from outliers like Greenfields, Marino Rocks and Kudla I just don't see the point. All those other stations like Parafield Gardens and Elizabeth South serve communities that rely on the rail network. If you want to speed up some services there are other methods like express services. But don't remove stations just because it looks good on a map or a timetable.

If the Hills bypass for goods trains gets built, then the ARTC line next to the Gawler line (from Adelaide to Dry Creek) will be mostly free. So if that happens, then a 160 km/h express train to Dry Creek would be possible and fairly inexpensive.

We wouldn't need to close any stations by having a local train and an express train. One train that's all stations (including North Adelaide) that terminates at Dry Creek, and another express train that's Adelaide, Dry Creek then all stations to Gawler Central.

Even if trains were free on the Hills and Outer Harbor lines, it would still be cheaper to run trams when the time comes to replace diesels and electrify. Minimal signals, cheaper rollingstock, lighter weight overhead wire systems, faster acceleration and braking of the lighter trams. Heavy rail cannot outperform trams over those short distances between stations, and it's simply more expensive. Plus, trams can run through streets, say past Port Dock into the Port, branch off to Largs and Semaphore as well as past the Grange terminus, possibly to Henley Beach to link up with a Henley Line to the CBD. I'm not advocating any of that necessarily, but a tram has the flexibility to do that. To the Hills, trams could accelerate and brake through the Hills curves far better than heavy rail, again possibly street running in Belair to get more passengers.

Then, of course, a city underground loop with trams would also be far cheaper than a heavy rail tunnel.

That means if a future government, faced with the cost of replacing diesels and electrifying the lines would have an easy sell if it chose that option.

If I wanted to ensure the future of heavy rail, then I'd be trying to get heavy rail strengths working hard. That is, high speeds between small numbers of big stations. Those stations being fed by feeder buses. At the moment, the Outer Harbor and the Hills lines are basically set up for light rail, but using heavy rail vehicles. It's a miracle they've survived so far.

Coromandel Station is pretty busy. I used to get on at Glenalta which would have 3 people, Coromandel would have 20 people getting on. Coromandel is easier for a lot locals to access than Blackwood. Why would you close Coromandel and leave Millswood? Close Marino and Marino Rocks and build a new Marino station between the two, same with Hove and Warradale. Close Greenfields.

I haven't seen any announcements about when train services will resume to normal/full services. Does anyone have a guess when this might be?

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 10:44 pm

Even if trains were free on the Hills and Outer Harbor lines, it would still be cheaper to run trams when the time comes to replace diesels and electrify. Minimal signals, cheaper rollingstock, lighter weight overhead wire systems, faster acceleration and braking of the lighter trams. Heavy rail cannot outperform trams over those short distances between stations, and it's simply more expensive. Plus, trams can run through streets, say past Port Dock into the Port, branch off to Largs and Semaphore as well as past the Grange terminus, possibly to Henley Beach to link up with a Henley Line to the CBD. I'm not advocating any of that necessarily, but a tram has the flexibility to do that. To the Hills, trams could accelerate and brake through the Hills curves far better than heavy rail, again possibly street running in Belair to get more passengers.

Then, of course, a city underground loop with trams would also be far cheaper than a heavy rail tunnel.

That means if a future government, faced with the cost of replacing diesels and electrifying the lines would have an easy sell if it chose that option.

If I wanted to ensure the future of heavy rail, then I'd be trying to get heavy rail strengths working hard. That is, high speeds between small numbers of big stations. Those stations being fed by feeder buses. At the moment, the Outer Harbor and the Hills lines are basically set up for light rail, but using heavy rail vehicles. It's a miracle they've survived so far.

Rubberman what sort of $$$$$$ do you mean when you say light rail is cheaper for Outer Harbor and the Belair line instead of electrifying the current tracks?

And how would your light rail lines enter the CBD?

Any light rail "street running" will immediately slow down the journey compared to no barriers heavy rail.

What is the cost cost of resleepering (or re-guageing) the 2 lines? Plus the cost of rebuilding/building the tram stops?
Plus the cost of the trams and the cost of building the extensions to Semaphore and Grange?

In my mind this would be a very much bigger number than the electrification of the Outer Harbor and Belair lines plus the cost of more new trains....

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 6:32 pm

I am one of those people who favour closing stations, here is my list :

Belair Line

Remove : Mile End, Torrens Park, Lynton, Coromandel.
Build new station near Springbank Road replacing Torrens Park and Lynton
Some of Adelaide stations are truly embarrassing...why does anyone think that a station like Torrens Park attracts people to public transport?
People want safety and basic comfort as they wait for the train. Sadly few Adelaide train stations qualify...

After Mitcham, Coromandel is either the busiest or second busiest station on the Belair line. The car park is always full and the surrounding streets get busy too. There's also some big new housing developments going on down the road and Coromandel will be the closest station to them, so closing the station would be silly.

Agree with you re Torrens Park. The place is a disgrace and doesn't encourage people to use the station. The houses (which were more like dumping pits) just behind the station which the platform overlooked have finally been demolished, so that's a plus. However it exposes to pathetic state of the stations to everyone driving on Belair Rd and Blythewood Rd.

A new station at Springbank Rd could work -part of the old Clapham platform still exists. But I think a rebuild of TP would be better.

Ok everybody you have convinced me to scrub Coromandel off the hit list !!!

So where can I get station patronage figures from?

Waewick wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 9:20 pm

Brucetiki wrote:

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Fri May 08, 2020 10:57 pm

Marshall's advantage is the handling of the COVID pandemic. People will remember that for years to come.

Such as refusing to offer any assistance to government enterprise workers out of work due to COVID 19 but ineligible for JobKeeper.

Yep, I'm sure people will remember things like this.

Why do you think they are they better than everyone else who had to line up at centrelink.

People in exactly the same role with private companies qualified - for example Adelaide Oval staff qualified, Entertainment Centre staff did not.

So I ask you, what makes Adelaide Oval staff any better than Entertainment Centre staff?

Mods, happy for this to be shifted elsewhere.