Sensational-Adelaide.com

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:08 am

TorrensSA wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:30 pm

Yeah that makes it way to complicated. The idea is to get as many services and people on the train in peak. There should be at least 8 tph in peak direction, maybe 3 run express. Simple timetables work the best.

Skip stop sucks and 30 min frequency is shit in interpeak. It's either increase the frequency to 6 tph and have an all stops and express alternating OR 4 tph all stops. The only issue is not all trains can go to Gawler Central. I think all stops 4 tph is the way to go. Over time you will see a change in demand, people will start to use the smaller stations because they will have a good frequency.

The trouble is that stopping all stops is waaaay slower. Even with the electrics, the design is for higher maximum speed rather than acceleration (although hopefully better than the diesels).

So, it's a question of do people want a fast service with a complicated timetable? Or a much slower service, but more frequent at the smaller stations and simpler to grasp?

That's it. Choose one. Faster, or simpler. But we can't have both.

Of course you can have both, without it being complicated.

One line, two services. One local, stopping at all stations, and one express, that stops at larger stations only (and not Adelaide Metro's interpretation of express which is skip half the line, and then all stops for the rest of the line).

One larger station roughly halfway along the line which is timed between the two services and has a passing track. Local service pulls in and waits, express pulls in, people transfer between the two, express leaves, then local leaves. That way people can easily use express for longer distances and switch to local for the last few stops as required.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:05 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:08 am

TorrensSA wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:30 pm

Yeah that makes it way to complicated. The idea is to get as many services and people on the train in peak. There should be at least 8 tph in peak direction, maybe 3 run express. Simple timetables work the best.

Skip stop sucks and 30 min frequency is shit in interpeak. It's either increase the frequency to 6 tph and have an all stops and express alternating OR 4 tph all stops. The only issue is not all trains can go to Gawler Central. I think all stops 4 tph is the way to go. Over time you will see a change in demand, people will start to use the smaller stations because they will have a good frequency.

The trouble is that stopping all stops is waaaay slower. Even with the electrics, the design is for higher maximum speed rather than acceleration (although hopefully better than the diesels).

So, it's a question of do people want a fast service with a complicated timetable? Or a much slower service, but more frequent at the smaller stations and simpler to grasp?

That's it. Choose one. Faster, or simpler. But we can't have both.

Of course you can have both, without it being complicated.

One line, two services. One local, stopping at all stations, and one express, that stops at larger stations only (and not Adelaide Metro's interpretation of express which is skip half the line, and then all stops for the rest of the line).

One larger station roughly halfway along the line which is timed between the two services and has a passing track. Local service pulls in and waits, express pulls in, people transfer between the two, express leaves, then local leaves. That way people can easily use express for longer distances and switch to local for the last few stops as required.

Obviously you and I agree that such schemes are not complicated. True. 100%

However, the poster I was replying to suggested that such arrangements are complicated. So, while posters here might happily understand the various alternatives and see them as simple, the suggestion that others with less interest in route planning would find them complicated is equally valid.

So, your arrangement, or others all are simple to most people here...but to the average punter? Hmm.

I would also suggest though, that even with your suggestion, someone has to choose: either the slow train, or the fast train with limited stops. So, we certainly do not disagree.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:51 pm

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:05 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:08 am

The trouble is that stopping all stops is waaaay slower. Even with the electrics, the design is for higher maximum speed rather than acceleration (although hopefully better than the diesels).

So, it's a question of do people want a fast service with a complicated timetable? Or a much slower service, but more frequent at the smaller stations and simpler to grasp?

That's it. Choose one. Faster, or simpler. But we can't have both.

Of course you can have both, without it being complicated.

One line, two services. One local, stopping at all stations, and one express, that stops at larger stations only (and not Adelaide Metro's interpretation of express which is skip half the line, and then all stops for the rest of the line).

One larger station roughly halfway along the line which is timed between the two services and has a passing track. Local service pulls in and waits, express pulls in, people transfer between the two, express leaves, then local leaves. That way people can easily use express for longer distances and switch to local for the last few stops as required.

Obviously you and I agree that such schemes are not complicated. True. 100%

However, the poster I was replying to suggested that such arrangements are complicated. So, while posters here might happily understand the various alternatives and see them as simple, the suggestion that others with less interest in route planning would find them complicated is equally valid.

So, your arrangement, or others all are simple to most people here...but to the average punter? Hmm.

I would also suggest though, that even with your suggestion, someone has to choose: either the slow train, or the fast train with limited stops. So, we certainly do not disagree.

I think whether the average punter finds it complicated or not ultimately comes down to how they're communicated.

Let's use the Gawler line as the example, which Adelaide Metro colours red. Solid, with an L for local. Outlined with an E for Express. Have it on the arrival boards, and have it a digital one in the front window of the train that you can see as the train approaches. Clear maps showing the stops for the two routes.



The problem is when you throw in "some times" routes, like with some of the trams. The Glenelg tram goes to the RAH, except sometimes it goes to Entertainment Centre, and sometimes it goes to Festival Centre. It's the exceptions that suddenly complicate things because then you have to worry about is the time you're catching it when the exception is or not. Sticking to two very clear services, solves that.

And with my suggestion, yes people do still have to choose to an extent, but if they choose to use the local train then that's limited to only a few stops. You catch the express to the largest station closest to your destination, and then switch to local to go one or two more (or vice versa). That way it's a little bit best of both worlds. Obviously the larger stations are located with major POI or higher density.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 1:13 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:51 pm

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:05 pm

Of course you can have both, without it being complicated.

One line, two services. One local, stopping at all stations, and one express, that stops at larger stations only (and not Adelaide Metro's interpretation of express which is skip half the line, and then all stops for the rest of the line).

One larger station roughly halfway along the line which is timed between the two services and has a passing track. Local service pulls in and waits, express pulls in, people transfer between the two, express leaves, then local leaves. That way people can easily use express for longer distances and switch to local for the last few stops as required.

Obviously you and I agree that such schemes are not complicated. True. 100%

However, the poster I was replying to suggested that such arrangements are complicated. So, while posters here might happily understand the various alternatives and see them as simple, the suggestion that others with less interest in route planning would find them complicated is equally valid.

So, your arrangement, or others all are simple to most people here...but to the average punter? Hmm.

I would also suggest though, that even with your suggestion, someone has to choose: either the slow train, or the fast train with limited stops. So, we certainly do not disagree.

I think whether the average punter finds it complicated or not ultimately comes down to how they're communicated.

Let's use the Gawler line as the example, which Adelaide Metro colours red. Solid, with an L for local. Outlined with an E for Express. Have it on the arrival boards, and have it a digital one in the front window of the train that you can see as the train approaches. Clear maps showing the stops for the two routes.



The problem is when you throw in "some times" routes, like with some of the trams. The Glenelg tram goes to the RAH, except sometimes it goes to Entertainment Centre, and sometimes it goes to Festival Centre. It's the exceptions that suddenly complicate things because then you have to worry about is the time you're catching it when the exception is or not. Sticking to two very clear services, solves that.

And with my suggestion, yes people do still have to choose to an extent, but if they choose to use the local train then that's limited to only a few stops. You catch the express to the largest station closest to your destination, and then switch to local to go one or two more (or vice versa). That way it's a little bit best of both worlds. Obviously the larger stations are located with major POI or higher density.

Of course. If there's a display at the station saying that the next train stops there in x minutes going to Adelaide or wherever, there's no problem. Plus, obviously, information updated on apps.

The issue of getting on the slow train and transferring to the fast one is exactly the same issue as proposals for buses feeding heavy rail and faster trams. That is, the reputed dislike by Adelaideans of changing vehicles. It's certainly the common wisdom that people prefer not to transfer, even if transferring is quicker. In effect, transport planners here make the decision between fast with transfers vs slow but with one vehicle.

I think there's more inertia in changing mode, given it's hard to align time tables (and sticking to them) and the greater distance to get from one to the other. In this scenario you'd have an island platform servicing both tracks in one direction, so that transferring is literally a few metres across the platform. People don't seem to have much issue with transferring from the Botanic tram to Glenelg at the RAH stop when it's already there waiting for them.

The Local + Express option is great, but I don't think we can provide the required frequency of this service outside of peak hour to make it work. It would also require quite a bit of new infrastructure.

The skip-stop pattern we have now isn't perfect, but provides a solution to some key objectives:
-A train every 15 minutes at major stations outside of peak.
-A fairly regular service for intermediate stations.
-A fairly fast service to all areas along the line, including Gawler
-Allows for a high overall frequency by reducing the space between services for the full line.

It would be interesting to see passenger movements along the line, but given the amount of regional centres you would expect a lot of trips to be:
-Between the city and major stations
-Between the city and intermediate stations
-Between intermediate and major stations.
in that order. The skip-stop pattern supports all of those movements fairly well.

If we are going to make changes to make it more simple, my suggestion would be 2 services, one all stops to Salisbury and one express to Mawson Lakes, then express to Salisbury and then all stops. This requires no additional infrastructure as a turnback is available at Salisbury.

During peak, the same pattern would be in place, with an additional service in the pattern:
1. All stops to Salisbury.
2. Express to Mawson Lakes, express to Salisbury, then all stops to Elizabeth.
3. Express to Mawson Lakes, Express to Salisbury, Express to Elizabeth, then all stations to Gawler Central.

Again, no new infrastructure would be required as there is a turnback at Elizabeth.

A little doco on the opening of the electrified Gawler line

https://youtu.be/kIqButgZbxk

Few snaps of the Gawler Line Today

Jacob_ULG3 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 12, 2022 9:18 pm

Few snaps of the Gawler Line Today

What are the extra rails in the Gawler Central picture for?

SBD wrote:

Jacob_ULG3 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 12, 2022 9:18 pm

Few snaps of the Gawler Line Today

What are the extra rails in the Gawler Central picture for?

Looks like a set of check rails. Usually used at bridges and tunnels to prevent derailing.

Looks like they were installed with the buffer in case of collision, they weren’t there before.

There's a few of those.

There's 2 buffer points on the new Elizabeth turnback track which got used today as a train had to get passengers to disembark due to an electrical fault.

There's 1 north of the Gawler Junction that heads towards the old roseworthy and Nuriootpa line.

All of them have assisted tracks and also derailer points after them as well.

The local and express idea is a good but the frequency will be to low.
What would happen is skip stop pattern A becomes express and pattern B becomes local.
Local should be called all stops to make it less complicated.
So we end up with two 30 min frequencies which really is shit.
What we need is a 20 min frequency on All Stops and 20 min on Express.
So a 10 min frequency at the main stations.

TorrensSA wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 13, 2022 1:29 pm

The local and express idea is a good but the frequency will be to low.
What would happen is skip stop pattern A becomes express and pattern B becomes local.
Local should be called all stops to make it less complicated.
So we end up with two 30 min frequencies which really is shit.
What we need is a 20 min frequency on All Stops and 20 min on Express.
So a 10 min frequency at the main stations.

Is the time gained by an express service overtaking an all-stops service sufficient to make up for the dwell time at the synchronisation station to allow for everyone who wants to (including elderly or disabled) to cross between trains in either direction?

Or you could have a setup to the North Shore/Beaches Railway Line.

During daytime you have

Local:

Run between Smithfield and Mawson via all stations. And vice versa.

Train 2:

running between Gawler Central and Adelaide stopping at Gawler Oval, Gawler, Evanston, Tambelin, Kudla, Munno Para, Smithfield, Elizabeth, Salisbury, Mawson, then all stops to Adelaide. And vice versa.

Spotto wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:28 pm

SBD wrote:

Jacob_ULG3 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 12, 2022 9:18 pm

Few snaps of the Gawler Line Today

What are the extra rails in the Gawler Central picture for?

Looks like a set of check rails. Usually used at bridges and tunnels to prevent derailing.

Looks like they were installed with the buffer in case of collision, they weren’t there before.

I wonder whether the extra rails are to strengthen the rail/sleeper formation given that the buffer and extra stops are clamped to the rail. Check rails at bridges and tunnels generally have an angled lead-in section to redirect a derailed wheelset away from the bridge or tunnel structure.