Sensational-Adelaide.com

rhino wrote:The down side is that Adelaide will no-longer be on a through-route. The Adelaide Freight Terminal would be a dead-end siding, meaning that through-freights (eg Melbourne-Perth) will either not carry any Adelaide loading, or will take longer because they have to back-track to get to Adelaide. Time is money, especially in transport, with today's "just-in-time" mentallity, and I would hate to see freight moving back to road because rail just takes too long. Alternatively, the freight terminal could be moved out to Mallala. Don't know if that's a good thing or not.

The only option that I can think of should a rerouting of the line take place is that we would see more connecting services from Adelaide to Port Pirie/Crystal Brook like we currently see with the SCT services to Coonamia from the AFT.

Will, are you saying that you think Melbourne-Adelaide freight will go Melbourne-Murray Bridge-Port Pirie (Coonamia)-Adelaide?

Maybe not to Coonamia (wrong example - mental blank ) but certainly to Two Wells/Virginia.

Maybe a new rail line could be built from Gawler to Two Wells, and then the Freight Terminal could be moved to Gawler, with the Northern Expressway, Northern Connector, PREXY and a future North-South corridor providing fast, efficient movement to the suburbs of Adelaide.

I found a photo of dual height platforms: perhaps this is the solution they will use for the outer harbor line from here

The stations have been adapted: new low level platforms have been added either as extensions to existing high level platforms or by building them on the opposite side of the track to the high level platforms.

That is more then likely what will happen (as my sources have told me) but the height difference between the standard railway platform and the light rail one on the Outer Harbor line will be a fair bit bigger then the height difference shown in the photo. European platforms are generally lower then the ones here being either at ground level or around 3ft above ground. The current higher level platforms (mainly those built after c.1970) are around 4ft above the rail level, give or take 4 inches at the most.

Norman wrote:Maybe a new rail line could be built from Gawler to Two Wells, and then the Freight Terminal could be moved to Gawler, with the Northern Expressway, Northern Connector, PREXY and a future North-South corridor providing fast, efficient movement to the suburbs of Adelaide.

Gawler's really too far from Adelaide for this purpose - putting it there would be a waste of truck drivers' time, fuel and equipment!

I suggest putting it where some of the saltpans currently are. By using the hypersaline water left over from desalination, we can get much more salt from much less land. The potential acid sulfate soils there make the land unsuitable for many kinds of development (which is part of the reason why the saltpans are there in the first place) but it would be ideal for a freight terminal when the existing ones become inadequate.

Aidan wrote:

Norman wrote:Maybe a new rail line could be built from Gawler to Two Wells, and then the Freight Terminal could be moved to Gawler, with the Northern Expressway, Northern Connector, PREXY and a future North-South corridor providing fast, efficient movement to the suburbs of Adelaide.

Gawler's really too far from Adelaide for this purpose - putting it there would be a waste of truck drivers' time, fuel and equipment!

I suggest putting it where some of the saltpans currently are. By using the hypersaline water left over from desalination, we can get much more salt from much less land. The potential acid sulfate soils there make the land unsuitable for many kinds of development (which is part of the reason why the saltpans are there in the first place) but it would be ideal for a freight terminal when the existing ones become inadequate.

If the south line is diverted around the hills and joins the north line near Mallala, even the salt pans location would mean a dead-end yard as opposed to a through-yard. Do we really want Adelaide's major freight yard to be a dead-end siding 20 or more km off the mainline? Why not bring the South Line on it's current alignment up to world's best standard with proper cambing on curves, and straighten out a few of the sharper curves, do more grade seperation etc. The problems can be fixed, except for the fact that too many whingers bought property close to the line.

rhino wrote:

Aidan wrote:

Norman wrote:Maybe a new rail line could be built from Gawler to Two Wells, and then the Freight Terminal could be moved to Gawler, with the Northern Expressway, Northern Connector, PREXY and a future North-South corridor providing fast, efficient movement to the suburbs of Adelaide.

Gawler's really too far from Adelaide for this purpose - putting it there would be a waste of truck drivers' time, fuel and equipment!

I suggest putting it where some of the saltpans currently are. By using the hypersaline water left over from desalination, we can get much more salt from much less land. The potential acid sulfate soils there make the land unsuitable for many kinds of development (which is part of the reason why the saltpans are there in the first place) but it would be ideal for a freight terminal when the existing ones become inadequate.

If the south line is diverted around the hills and joins the north line near Mallala, even the salt pans location would mean a dead-end yard as opposed to a through-yard. Do we really want Adelaide's major freight yard to be a dead-end siding 20 or more km off the mainline?

It's certainly far preferable than having it 20km or more from the main commercial and industrial focus of Adelaide!

Adelaide isn't some little country town, it's Australia's fifth biggest city! We easily have enough freight for trains to Perth (and Darwin) without having to worry about whether through trains will continue to stop here if it's a very brief detour! Currently, as double stacking is possible on the Perth line but not the Melbourne line, we have the operational advantage of being able to stack our containers on top of the Melbourne ones for Perth journeys. If that is still the case after the new line opens, the trains will continue to call at Adelaide because there's a huge economic incentive to do so. If the new line enables double stacking all the way to Melbourne then we probably will have some of those trains bypass Adelaide, but that's not a problem! There will be more dedicated Adelaide to Perth trains, as there always were before it was a through line, and there is no danger at all of rail losing market share to road - the only trucks that make the costly journey are the ones that service the towns along the way. Indeed, if double stacking to Melbourne does become possible, rail would gain market share as it would be able to cut its prices on the Melbourne route.

Why not bring the South Line on it's current alignment up to world's best standard with proper cambing on curves, and straighten out a few of the sharper curves, do more grade seperation etc. The problems can be fixed, except for the fact that too many whingers bought property close to the line.

The existing Hills Line (is it still the South Line? I thought it had lost that name years ago!) is indirect and still quite steep. Straightening out a few of the sharper curves would not solve the problem, and while grade separation would be welcome, it's not a limiting factor in the operation of this line. Those people you call "whingers" (who actually have a valid complaint) are not part of the problem and will not prevent it being fixed.

We have four options: upgrade the existing line, build a new line through the Brownhill Creek valley with a tunnel to Nairne, build a Mount Lofty Ranges base tunnel, or build a northern diversion.

Upgrading the existing line would, as I said, not solve the problem. It would also continue to restrict what TransAdelaide can do on the Belair Line.

A Brownhill Creek Valley line (an old idea which had the real objective of faster passenger services to Monarto) would have been controversial even when it was proposed, but its environmental unacceptability would be far worse now. Linking up to the existing line in the Mitcham area, it would combine most of the disadvantages of all options, but would be faster and less steep than the existing line.

A Mount Lofty Ranges base tunnel is technically the best solution, but would be incredibly expensive. It can't be justified yet, but eventually, who knows?

So that leaves the northern diversion. It's a bit longer, but still faster. It would cease to adversely impact TransAdelaide services. It's affordable and would bring immediate economic benefits. And it will be entirely good for rail's market share, even if the shortest route is no longer through Adelaide.

It would not affect the Adelaide-Perth traffic very much, but it would certainly affect the Adelaide-Melbourne traffic. With highways between Adelaide and Melbourne being constantly improved, running time between the two cities is getting shorter, and is one of the biggest thorns in the side of rail freight transport between the two cities. Most suppliers work on a "just-in-time" basis - adding hours to travelling time is not attractive to them.

quote: So that leaves the northern diversion. It's a bit longer, but still faster. It would cease to adversely impact TransAdelaide services. It's affordable and would bring immediate economic benefits. And it will be entirely good for rail's market share, even if the shortest route is no longer through Adelaide.


There is still considerable doubt that a line heading north from Murray Bridge will allow trains to reach Adelaide quicker than the current South Line, or Hills Line as you call it. This is one of the things the federal review is looking at. And is it really affordable? You're not only talking about a completely new alignment from the ground up (or down in the case of cuttings), but aquisition of freehold land as well. What will the immediate economic benefits be?

rhino wrote:It would not affect the Adelaide-Perth traffic very much, but it would certainly affect the Adelaide-Melbourne traffic. With highways between Adelaide and Melbourne being constantly improved, running time between the two cities is getting shorter, and is one of the biggest thorns in the side of rail freight transport between the two cities. Most suppliers work on a "just-in-time" basis - adding hours to travelling time is not attractive to them.

It would neither add hours on to journey times nor take hours off them! It would probably be slightly faster - at the Melbourne end the trains now use the longer but faster route via Geelong instead of the direct route via Ballarat, and I'd expect the situation would be similar at this end. However I concede there's a chance that it may be slightly slower. Certainly the difference in running time would be far less than what could be gained by improving the track to increase line speeds on the fast sections. But I think you may be overestimating the importance of speed: working on a JIT basis, speed is nowhere near as important as predictability.

So that leaves the northern diversion. It's a bit longer, but still faster. It would cease to adversely impact TransAdelaide services. It's affordable and would bring immediate economic benefits. And it will be entirely good for rail's market share, even if the shortest route is no longer through Adelaide.

There is still considerable doubt that a line heading north from Murray Bridge will allow trains to reach Adelaide quicker than the current South Line, or Hills Line as you call it. This is one of the things the federal review is looking at. And is it really affordable? You're not only talking about a completely new alignment from the ground up (or down in the case of cuttings), but aquisition of freehold land as well. What will the immediate economic benefits be?

An increase in productivity, as the ruling gradients on the line would be much shallower, so it would be possible to haul more freight per locomotive. And it would make it feasible to upgrade the line's loading gauge to allow double stacking of containers, increasing productivity still further.

And yes I'm aware of the land issue - I expect that's the reason why it hasn't been done already.

I don’t see how it could possibly be feasible to build a railway diversion through the hills given the huge cost to replace a line that serves its purpose ok.

The advantages of less noise and arguably improved safety is not worth spending >$500m for a diversion.

There could be operational savings due to easier grades, but it seems the operators are not willing to invest a significant amount of their own money.

To put the study into context it was announced by Andrew Southcott during the election to win votes in the hills, Labor felt the need to match the offer, but was only prepared to budget $200,000 in the next 3 years.

bs wrote:I don’t see how it could possibly be feasible to build a railway diversion through the hills given the huge cost to replace a line that serves its purpose ok.

The advantages of less noise and arguably improved safety is not worth spending >$500m for a diversion.

With a loading gauge increase to enable double stacking of containers, the railway's costs could be reduced considerably.

There could be operational savings due to easier grades, but it seems the operators are not willing to invest a significant amount of their own money.

As they no longer own the tracks they run on, this is understandable.

To put the study into context it was announced by Andrew Southcott during the election to win votes in the hills, Labor felt the need to match the offer, but was only prepared to budget $200,000 in the next 3 years.

...but the idea had been around since before the line was converted to standard gauge.

Aidan wrote:

bs wrote:I don’t see how it could possibly be feasible to build a railway diversion through the hills given the huge cost to replace a line that serves its purpose ok.

The advantages of less noise and arguably improved safety is not worth spending >$500m for a diversion.

With a loading gauge increase to enable double stacking of containers, the railway's costs could be reduced considerably.

The Bunbury Street tunnel in Melbourne would still restrict double stacking of containers. Retrofitting that for double stacking would be very expensive given the limited space in the area.

The new route would have a distance of 175kms and a travel time of 3 hours vs the current route of 105kms and a travel time of approximately 2.5 hours. So if the bypass is built rail will become even less time competitive with road.

Granted there will be some operating savings, but given the large cost of the investment that returns will be relatively small.

With most trains running Melbourne to Perth it is likely that the Adelaide container freight terminal will be moved way up north to Mallala, I don’t believe this would be good for Adelaide industry and will lead to a lot of truck travelling up that way.

Starting on page 3 of this newsletter is a good summary of the issues. http://rtsa.com.au/assets/2008/03/rtsa- ... y-2006.pdf

bs wrote:The Bunbury Street tunnel in Melbourne would still restrict double stacking of containers. Retrofitting that for double stacking would be very expensive given the limited space in the area.

Yes it's a problem, but this isn't the only project that would make use of an enlarged Bunbury Street tunnel. There's also the inland freight route (Melbourne to Queensland via Shepparton).

The new route would have a distance of 175kms and a travel time of 3 hours vs the current route of 105kms and a travel time of approximately 2.5 hours. So if the bypass is built rail will become even less time competitive with road.

Why 3 hours? That's an average speed of under 60km/h! Surely with a new route a better time could be achieved?

Granted there will be some operating savings, but given the large cost of the investment that returns will be relatively small.

With most trains running Melbourne to Perth it is likely that the Adelaide container freight terminal will be moved way up north to Mallala, I don’t believe this would be good for Adelaide industry and will lead to a lot of truck travelling up that way.

No, that's extremely unlikely because Adelaide's a significant destination in its own right. A lot of trains would bypass Adelaide, but that doesn't meant that Adelaide would lose out. And in the extremely unlikely event of a train company wanting to move the terminal to Mallala, the state government could and would prevent it.