Sensational-Adelaide.com

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:15 pm

Spacings of 2.5km are pretty much the minimum if you want heavy rail. That sort of spacing allows heavy rail to work to its strengths of high speed. Once you get under two kms, that advantage dies off, and light rail starts looking better and better. It's exactly why the Glenelg line conversion from heavy rail to light rail worked. The short distances between stations on the Outer Harbor line are why there's always talk of conversion to light rail whenever big expenditures like new vehicles or electrification come up. The cost of conversion to 600v DC, less complicated signalling, cheaper vehicles is really easy to justify to the public if heavy rail isn't a lot faster. That means absolutely resisting extra stops unless there's a huge demand.

Re the above, unfortunately not everyone drives. Try living 1.5kms in between those stations, whilst being 400-600 metres east/west of the track with minimal if any bus options. Until this void is filled, then the stations should remain where they are for now.

Having stations relatively close in the northern suburbs reduces the travel time on foot as well. Perhaps running a survey as to whether or not the Outer Harbor and Belair lines would be suitable for light rail conversion might pay off. Most of the stations are around 1km apart exc Lynton to Corromandel. I have no idea how the trams would cope with the 1 in 45 gradients. Also, would they be suitable for running to Mt Barker?

The Gawler Central line is around 40kms long with 25 stations, excluding the seldom used North Adelaide. If one had to remove 5 stations to provide a higher average speed, which would these be?

Again, I would suspect that North Adelaide, Dudley Park, Greenfields, Parafield, Nurlutta, Womma, and Evanston. Broadmeadows could be shifted a little further south to account for Womma's absence. But what's your opinion on future station positioining. In the 1950s, Parafield was after Dry Creek, and Womma, Broadmeadows, and Munno Para were yet to exist.

MT269 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 15, 2022 10:28 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:15 pm

Spacings of 2.5km are pretty much the minimum if you want heavy rail. That sort of spacing allows heavy rail to work to its strengths of high speed. Once you get under two kms, that advantage dies off, and light rail starts looking better and better. It's exactly why the Glenelg line conversion from heavy rail to light rail worked. The short distances between stations on the Outer Harbor line are why there's always talk of conversion to light rail whenever big expenditures like new vehicles or electrification come up. The cost of conversion to 600v DC, less complicated signalling, cheaper vehicles is really easy to justify to the public if heavy rail isn't a lot faster. That means absolutely resisting extra stops unless there's a huge demand.

Re the above, unfortunately not everyone drives. Try living 1.5kms in between those stations, whilst being 400-600 metres east/west of the track with minimal if any bus options. Until this void is filled, then the stations should remain where they are for now.

Having stations relatively close in the northern suburbs reduces the travel time on foot as well. Perhaps running a survey as to whether or not the Outer Harbor and Belair lines would be suitable for light rail conversion might pay off. Most of the stations are around 1km apart exc Lynton to Corromandel. I have no idea how the trams would cope with the 1 in 45 gradients. Also, would they be suitable for running to Mt Barker?

The Gawler Central line is around 40kms long with 25 stations, excluding the seldom used North Adelaide. If one had to remove 5 stations to provide a higher average speed, which would these be?

Again, I would suspect that North Adelaide, Dudley Park, Greenfields, Parafield, Nurlutta, Womma, and Evanston. Broadmeadows could be shifted a little further south to account for Womma's absence. But what's your opinion on future station positioining. In the 1950s, Parafield was after Dry Creek, and Womma, Broadmeadows, and Munno Para were yet to exist.

I'm agnostic about whether any of the existing heavy rail lines should continue as heavy rail or become light rail.

Rather, it's pretty much established that heavy rail is superior where its speed comes into play. That's generally at station spacing of 2km or more. Similarly, trams come into their own at spacings of 600m or less, with the distances between 600m and 2km depending on specific economic or other factors such as customer preference.

Now, how this can play out is that when major vehicle purchases come up for review, the modes that fall into the grey area of 600m to 2km spacing are subject to a lot of scrutiny.

Thus, if a heavy rail vehicle stops every 800m and just picks up a few passengers, then, for all intents and purposes, it's just using a heavy rail vehicle for tram duties. That means either replacement by tram, or the line is abandoned....as has happened to various HR passenger lines round Adelaide. Henley Beach, Hendon, Bridgewater etc. If the Gawler line got to the point of stations every 600m, why not make it an O-Bahn?

I am one for amalgamating stations, and there are numerous examples on the network where this should happen-discussed here over the years in detail, however it cant be done in isolation. Instead of running busses in competition with the trains on long routes directly to the city, once stations are amalgamated, there needs to be a greater infill of buses, and feeding into the trains. The remaining stations should have much better services, security, kiosks, heated shelters etc. Also, as a youth, using the trains to get to work, there used to be far more express services on all the lines....not so much any more. Any reason why the express/ limited services cant be ramped up again? Remove even a couple of stations on each line would reduce the problem of express trains being held up by all stoppers as well.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:11 am

If the Gawler line got to the point of stations every 600m, why not make it an O-Bahn?

Because the Adelaide 4000 class trains in a 3 car configuration holds 540 passengers. Buses hold 60 people max that means you need 9 buses to "replace" one train.

And you would have to employ 8 more drivers to replace the one train driver and buy a lot more buses....more....more.....$$$$$$$$$$....for absolutely nothing gained.

All this fantasy talk of replacing heavy rail with light rail or obahn is a waste of time when you should be discussing how to make what we have "better".

Yes....cull the number of stations on the Gawler and Outer Harbor lines.

Yes...build a CBD rail tunnel

Yes...keep upgrading the network with grade separations and station improvements.

Yes...co-ordinate train/bus timetables in the outer northern and southern suburbs allowing seamless transfers.

Yes...build transit orientated developments around train stations....build TOWARDS transport nodes not AWAY from them.

Park'n'rides create more problems than they fix.
(Remenber the NIMBY's who blocked a 4 story apartment block next to the Paradise Interchange because"it would have brought more traffic to the local streets"....well now they have a huge park'n'ride next door blocking their streets for 2 hours morning and evening peak hours)

claybro wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:56 pm

I am one for amalgamating stations, and there are numerous examples on the network where this should happen-discussed here over the years in detail, however it cant be done in isolation. Instead of running busses in competition with the trains on long routes directly to the city, once stations are amalgamated, there needs to be a greater infill of buses, and feeding into the trains. The remaining stations should have much better services, security, kiosks, heated shelters etc. Also, as a youth, using the trains to get to work, there used to be far more express services on all the lines....not so much any more. Any reason why the express/ limited services cant be ramped up again? Remove even a couple of stations on each line would reduce the problem of express trains being held up by all stoppers as well.

As an example, the 228 which is almost a parallel service to the train gets patronage levels which are less than the O'bahn, but enough to justify the service. The 462 on the other hand barely gets 2 at busy times. I have also wondered why it is not made clockwise to eliminate the need for difficult right turns onto Angle Vale Rd, plus the rough and bumpy turn onto Max Fetchen Dr.

This just falls into the category of service refinements. There will always be whingers. I don't agree with turning city routes into feeders. There are enough Scanias in service already, and I would prefer the transition to 100% Scania to take longer than what it would could in this scenario, with the potential service reductions.

The current semi-stopper pattern isn't vastly different in regards to travel time to the 2000s when trains ran express from Greenfield and Dry Creek in inter-peak at 30 minute frequencies. Unfortunately, the DIT seems to be completely deaf when it comes to passenger complaints/suggestions. Almost nothing can deliver the message to them about the whole debacle with the Gawler Central line timetable as a whole.

I just don't understand why the run can't be completed in 57 minutes like it would have in the 2000s.

PeFe wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:22 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:11 am

If the Gawler line got to the point of stations every 600m, why not make it an O-Bahn?

Because the Adelaide 4000 class trains in a 3 car configuration holds 540 passengers. Buses hold 60 people max that means you need 9 buses to "replace" one train.

And you would have to employ 8 more drivers to replace the one train driver and buy a lot more buses....more....more.....$$$$$$$$$$....for absolutely nothing gained.

All this fantasy talk of replacing heavy rail with light rail or obahn is a waste of time when you should be discussing how to make what we have "better".

Yes....cull the number of stations on the Gawler and Outer Harbor lines.

Yes...build a CBD rail tunnel

Yes...keep upgrading the network with grade separations and station improvements.

Yes...co-ordinate train/bus timetables in the outer northern and southern suburbs allowing seamless transfers.

Yes...build transit orientated developments around train stations....build TOWARDS transport nodes not AWAY from them.

Park'n'rides create more problems than they fix.
(Remenber the NIMBY's who blocked a 4 story apartment block next to the Paradise Interchange because"it would have brought more traffic to the local streets"....well now they have a huge park'n'ride next door blocking their streets for 2 hours morning and evening peak hours)

Coupled Citadis 305 trams such as used in Sydney carry a total of 420 passengers.
Brisbane busway buses are to carry 150 passengers.

So, by changing to those you increase the frequency. That's a good thing for many passengers.

I'm not trying to troll here. I'm just pointing out that once you slow heavy rail down by having stations too close, these other options become competitive. Not only have heavy rail closures like I mentioned before happened, but also plenty of examples interstate and overseas of this happening, St Kilda and Port Melbourne in Victoria, for example. I recall the heavy rail enthusiasts using exactly the same reasoning there why trams wouldn't work. It didn't go well for heavy rail. Here? Adelaide Metro would bustitute it in a heartbeat if they thought they'd get away with it. The best approach for heay rail survival is to ensure that it works to its strengths: speed. You need an average of over 55kph to beat cars. Heavy rail can do that, but only at decent station spacing.

Hi All, long time lurker, first time poster.

There's two main things which you can play with to grow ridership - service frequency and travel time.

Strategically replacing certain station pairs with a single, new station would for the vast majority users offer a faster total journey time*. It would also allow for higher frequency services at every station with no additional operational cost due to the need for express services being eliminated.

Let's take Marino and Marino Rocks as an example, which are located less than 600 walking metres apart.
In this example you close one station and upgrade the other, with all trains now stopping at the newly upgraded station.

Current max peak waiting time for a train at both stations is 20 minutes, the new station would have a maximum waiting time of 10 minutes. A reduction in max waiting time of 10 minutes then offsets any additional time to get to the new station. Whether that's by walking, cycling, local feeder shuttles, or driving.

If you were to apply this to multiple stations along the line, the vast-majority of users would experience a faster total journey time.
The below examples would collectively result in a 38 minute journey from Seaford to Adelaide stopping all stations, compared to 50 minutes today.

Potential changes on the Seaford Line:

• Edwardstown & Woodlands Park replaced with Edwardstown Interchange (<7m walk from existing stations)

• Ascot Park & Marion replaced with Park Holme Interchange (above Marion & Daws Roads, <7m walk from existing stations)

• Hove & Brighton replaced with Brighton Interchange (Located just slightly north of Jetty Road, <8m walk from existing stations)

• Marino & Marino Rocks replaced with Marino (Either rename and upgrade one or replace both with a new equidistant station)

• Emerson closed due to proximity to Clarence Park

• Warradale Closed due to proximity to Oaklands

• Christie Downs closed due to proximity to Noarlunga Centre Interchange

*Total Journey Time including getting to the station, waiting for a train, travelling on the train, and getting to your final destination.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:47 pm

Coupled Citadis 305 trams such as used in Sydney carry a total of 420 passengers.

Perfect....if you are going to replace already built infrastructure then change the O-bahn to light rail. Get rid of way too many buses clogging up Grenfell/Currie at peak hour.

Turn Grenfell/Currie into a transit mall with light rail running down to Light Square and beautify the corridor at the same time. Buses and delivery vehicles can share one lane in either direction. Private motorists can use other roads or avoid the CBD altogether.

St Kilda and Port Melbourne train lines were 4kms long......Gawler is 42 kms.....do I really have to state over and over again why it should remain heavy rail?

Light rail into low density suburbia over such long distances is very problematic. in 2013 I did a trip to the USA and I had a really good look at the light rail built into LA suburbia (a really good comparison to Adelaide) I am not going to repeat all my thoughts here but instead link to the thread I created at the time.

https://sensational-adelaide.com/forum/ ... php?t=4804

PeFe wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:35 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:47 pm

Coupled Citadis 305 trams such as used in Sydney carry a total of 420 passengers.

Perfect....if you are going to replace already built infrastructure then change the O-bahn to light rail. Get rid of way too many buses clogging up Grenfell/Currie at peak hour.

Turn Grenfell/Currie into a transit mall with light rail running down to Light Square and beautify the corridor at the same time. Buses and delivery vehicles can share one lane in either direction. Private motorists can use other roads or avoid the CBD altogether.

St Kilda and Port Melbourne train lines were 4kms long......Gawler is 42 kms.....do I really have to state over and over again why it should remain heavy rail?

Light rail into low density suburbia over such long distances is very problematic. in 2013 I did a trip to the USA and I had a really good look at the light rail built into LA suburbia (a really good comparison to Adelaide) I am not going to repeat all my thoughts here but instead link to the thread I created at the time.

https://sensational-adelaide.com/forum/ ... php?t=4804

Although the longest Melbourne tram line is about 23km, which would be equivalent of Adelaide to Parafield.
Run a tram up Prospect road through Cavan then up Salisbury highway and have it loop around the Salisbury city center, remove all the train stations between Mawson Lakes and Salisbury

New tram lines cost approx $100 million per kilometre.....what activity centres are you trying to connect...Adelaide CBD to Salisbury is already connected by heavy rail.

Prospect Rd can only justify a bus....nothing more.
Cavan can't justify a bus service let alone a tram.

Like I said let's put some time and effort and money into the system we already have.....so underloved and underfunded.

PeFe wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 6:15 pm

New tram lines cost approx $100 million per kilometre.....what activity centres are you trying to connect...Adelaide CBD to Salisbury is already connected by heavy rail.

Prospect Rd can only justify a bus....nothing more.
Cavan can't justify a bus service let alone a tram.

Like I said let's put some time and effort and money into the system we already have.....so underloved and underfunded.

Do you have a source to back up your $100m per KM figure?

The most recent tram extension is by no means an accurate guide due to two major factors:

1) The cost of the North Terrace junction was a significant component of the total project cost. This substantial cost wouldn’t be required for any other proposed tram extension. The cost of this is greatly offset by future further tram extensions.

2) The fact the main contractor went into administration during project construction - causing a multitude of costs not directly related to it being a tram line.

Here is some costings for Gold Coast stage 3.

https://investment.infrastructure.gov.a ... -18QLD-NRP

PeFe wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:35 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:47 pm

Coupled Citadis 305 trams such as used in Sydney carry a total of 420 passengers.

Perfect....if you are going to replace already built infrastructure then change the O-bahn to light rail. Get rid of way too many buses clogging up Grenfell/Currie at peak hour.

Turn Grenfell/Currie into a transit mall with light rail running down to Light Square and beautify the corridor at the same time. Buses and delivery vehicles can share one lane in either direction. Private motorists can use other roads or avoid the CBD altogether.

St Kilda and Port Melbourne train lines were 4kms long......Gawler is 42 kms.....do I really have to state over and over again why it should remain heavy rail?

Light rail into low density suburbia over such long distances is very problematic. in 2013 I did a trip to the USA and I had a really good look at the light rail built into LA suburbia (a really good comparison to Adelaide) I am not going to repeat all my thoughts here but instead link to the thread I created at the time.

https://sensational-adelaide.com/forum/ ... php?t=4804

You are missing the point. That's why you are repeating yourself. The point is that whether or not any line remains heavy rail depends on it having stations spaced far enough apart that heavy rail's speed makes it the optimum mode. I was responding to a suggestion that as time went on, more stations would be added. If that happens, station spacings reduce...and along with it the reason for the line being heavy rail. As it stands, the Gawler line should be heavy rail. However, the more stations in place, the slower it runs. That's the point you are not addressing.

PeFe wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:30 pm

Here is some costings for Gold Coast stage 3.

https://investment.infrastructure.gov.a ... -18QLD-NRP

A significant portion of cost for new light rail on existing road is for the repositioning, upgrade or working around existing under surface utility infrastructure. You can’t simply apply figures from one project to another without knowing all factors, and what elements were and were not attributed to total cost.

An easy local example would be the extension of the existing line to North Adelaide - the bridge already needs an upgrade, estimated at ~$60m, whether or not a tram runs through there. So does the tram project figure include $60m for a project that would’ve been required either way? Some budgets would include it, artificially inflating the per KM cost.

These considerations and factors apply to any sort of infrastructure project costings - assumptions are dangerous things.

MT269 wrote: Re the above, unfortunately not everyone drives. Try living 1.5kms in between those stations, whilst being 400-600 metres east/west of the track with minimal if any bus options. Until this void is filled, then the stations should remain where they are for now.

Try living 1.5km from a train station, is that supposed to be bad?
It will be something like 1% of all people of Adelaide live within 1.5km of a train station.
Almost everyone either drives or uses buses.
Salisbury Highway and Churchill Road have buses.

How can we need a station such as Greenfields for a minority of people but at the same time not need one to service the majority that live even further away.