Sensational-Adelaide.com

thecityguy wrote: heavy rail is ugly and unappealing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hello!! WTF !!!
The Paris Metro....unappealing?1! The London Tube unappealing?!!
Just because the SA government has not invested in the heavy rail system for 50 years..... please keep these small-city comments to yourself.
The Seaford line has been electrified and appears to be a winner (not with standing a few electrical failures).
If you really think heavy rail rail unappealing then please buy a cheap Tiger air fare to Sydney and check out these unappealing heavy rail developments....Chatswood, Parramatta, Wolli Creek, St Leonards, Hurstville, Hornsby, Bondi Junction and a slew of minor developments......

Sure, if we could have an under ground heavy railway system that would be great. Sadly that's not an option. And the fact is heavy rail in Adelaide is ugly as fuck. Clay put it well, light rail is much easier on the eye, all you need is a few tracks in the road, you hardly notice it.

Can't say the same for heavy rail, you have raised platforms and fences and the tracks look disgusting with all the rubbish that gets thrown onto it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, all you've shown there is that newer stations generally look better than stations which have not have a revamp in 30+ years. There are actually quite a few stations on the heavy rail lines which are equally as (if not more) aesthetically pleasing - the newer ones of course:




And some of the older ones:





Stop maintaining the tram infrastructure for 30+ years and it will look as bad as North Haven.

As a regular user of both tram and train in Adelaide, I personally find heavy rail just as appealing as light rail - especially for longer journeys. Tram's great in the city, but if I were heading out to Seaford or Port Adelaide I'd much rather hop on a train with its limited stops and higher speeds. It's horses for courses as they say.

I could be wrong but I think PeFe misunderstood the point of the "heavy rail is ugly" post.

I took its meaning as heavy rail involves a 15 metre wide reserve, which requires pedestrian crossings and cuts a swathe through the urban landscape. Compared to tramlines which run on roads, are pedestrian permeable, and integrate directly with the streetscape.

Of course if you look at the Glenelg line, you can see both modes employed. On street running at either end and the reserve cut through the suburbs. I guess that's an advantage for trams as they can do both whereas you wouldn't run heavy rail down Gouger Street.

Exactly my point, having heavy rail means you have an ugly 15 meter waste land strip running through the suburbs, with fences up either side. And yes you can't have them running down the middle of streets


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see your point now - but on that logic a priority bus network would be even better than a tram - no rails, no power lines, just a small kerb and perhaps a different colour road surface.

I still think that the light vs heavy rail decision should be made on the functional merits of each system - heavy rail for longer journeys with fewer stations, light rail for shorter journeys with frequent stops in commercial areas. If a system is primarily transferring people from middle-outer suburbs into the city during peak hours then I don't see the benefit of trams over trains - granted trams might have quicker loading times at stops but trains have a higher speed. Probably evens out overall. On the other hand, if a service links several commercial districts and will see significant peak and off-peak patronage between those districts and surrounding inner-metro residential areas then light rail would probably be a more sensible bet - especially if on-road running will take passengers directly to the doors of businesses.

A dedicated rail corridor running through a suburb doesn't have to be an eyesore and works pretty well in the Croydon/Kilkenny area - the corridor is generally tidy, lined with plane trees, regular pedestrian crossings etc. A little maintenance goes a long way regardless of the system in place...

Llessur2002 wrote:I see your point now - but on that logic a priority bus network would be even better than a tram - no rails, no power lines, just a small kerb and perhaps a different colour road surface.

Well now you're just being silly.

Llessur2002 wrote:I still think that the light vs heavy rail decision should be made on the functional merits of each system - heavy rail for longer journeys with fewer stations, light rail for shorter journeys with frequent stops in commercial areas.

Now you're just being super intelligent!

Llessur2002 wrote:A dedicated rail corridor running through a suburb doesn't have to be an eyesore and works pretty well in the Croydon/Kilkenny area - the corridor is generally tidy, lined with plane trees, regular pedestrian crossings etc. A little maintenance goes a long way regardless of the system in place...

Heavy rail corridors should not be eyesores, that's just lazy infrastructure planning & maintenance.

The questions that should be asked are yours above. What is the utility of the mode in the circumstance being investigated.

It's not just aesthetics of heavy v light rail. Heavy rail does require more "work" to make it visually appealing ,trenching/ under grounding, heavy screening by landscaping. These issues not so much so with light rail, which can run on flat tracks thru lawn if required. What heavy rail does lack is flexibility for spur options, particularly in heavily built up urban environments, ie port adelaide semaphore. There is the question of speed of light rail... Well even heavy rail will not operate at max speed on OH line due to spacing of stations. Short stopping lines are particularly suited to light rail. Next is length of the OH line... Suggest you all Wikipedia the Dresden tram system is Germany. Multiple lines. Combination of street and right of way track. Lines up to 28km in length. Coupling of trams to make 4/6 car sets. It works well there in the absence of an underground system, in a much more congested environment, and compliments the Sbahn ( surface suburban trains)

Just to clarify - I'm not in any way against light rail and agree that in many situations the benefits you have listed will be realised.

However, in terms of aesthetics, yes light rail presents a multitude of options in on-street environments but these are irrelevant to heavy rail as it will never be run on streets. When it comes to dedicated corridors which will still be required for long routes such as the City to Port Adelaide, I still can't see that light rail has any particular aesthetic advantage over heavy rail. The Glenelg-Greenhill Road stretch of the tram line is no more visually pleasing or less imposing than the Outer Harbor rail line and running on lawned tracks etc as in Vic Square would presumably be out of the question on such a long run.

Which brings us back to looking at the functional merits of both systems in each individual circumstance - in which case I remain very open minded.

It's been years since I caught the Glenelg tram ... can anyone tell me whether the trams (on the right-of-way section) have priority crossing over arterial roads and secondary streets in the same way as trains?

If so, then surely the running time difference between tram and train would be fairly minimal on a line with the close station spacing of the Outer Harbor line? If, and only if, the time differential proves to be fairly minimal between tram and train, then I'd think that would swing the argument in favour of light rail. A key time saving in this would be running the tram line into the city under Park Tce and onto a right-of-way along the suggested War Memorial Drive route, rather than the existing Port Rd route. The tramline would then continue along King William Street (southbound) into the heart of the city.

The difference between trams and trains has become blurred by the concept of tram-trains . These are generally lighter than regular train carriages but heavier than trams, they can run on regular rail lines and street running. They can be diesel or electric or both. Such systems are in use in Germany, France and else where in Europe. Picture 1 Lyon France .2 Kassel Germany

monotonehell wrote:you wouldn't run heavy rail down Gouger Street.

Oh come on live a little mate.

rev wrote:

monotonehell wrote:you wouldn't run heavy rail down Gouger Street.

Oh come on live a little mate.

Exactly, rev. I would. Let's shake up the system.

The route 96 and E-class trams in Melbourne are a sort of lite-version of the tram-train. Just if anyone is curious about a doemstic context of their operations in Australia.