Sensational-Adelaide.com

That is to allow passive surveillance from the road. It also reduces the likelyhood of the station being full of graffiti all the time.



Regarding the call for line to be at grade, you would still need level crossings then to allow for pedestrian movement across the rail line and local car access.

^^
That and the rail line starts to curve under the bridge. Platforms work much better when on a straight stretch of track.

let's hope in all of this that the station is moved from its current location.It does not really serve either the swimming centre or the shopping centre tucked away as it is, and even moving it a few dozen meters, would at least make it more visible from these facilities and the main roads and at least create the illusion of more connectivity. The bus interchange on the other side of the shopping centre has never really helped either.

[Shuz] wrote:In an ideal world, I would have done Morphett Road as an overpass, Diagonal Road as an underpass, with the rail line at grade.

I agree with this 100%, Shuz.

And Norman, the intersection upgrade I was thinking of would be, at a minimum: Remove any pedestrian lights, and don't create a right hand turning lane/traffic light onto Morphett Rd. The best upgrade scenario without a road over/underpass would be: if the lights for Diagonal and Morphett Rd heading south, were removed, and both roads just merged over the rail underpass. I know that sounds like it wouldn't work, but if it were clearly signed so motorists had time to get into their correct lane say 500m (or more) prior, then don't think it would be a problem. People change lanes like crazy over that railway crossing anyway, this way it would be clearly signed and marked which lanes go where.

mawsonguy wrote:The plan removes a road choke point but creates a rail choke point. There is no provision for a passing loop at the station which means you will not be able to run highspeed, long distance, non-stop, express services like they do in Sydney. They should, at least, build the tunnel and cutting wide enough so that passing loops can be added in future. It would be a lot cheaper to do it now than in the future. Can you imagine how much more patronage a 22 minute Seaford-City service would receive compared to the current 47 minute "express" service.

What about using track switching?

mawsonguy wrote:The plan removes a road choke point but creates a rail choke point. There is no provision for a passing loop at the station which means you will not be able to run highspeed, long distance, non-stop, express services like they do in Sydney. They should, at least, build the tunnel and cutting wide enough so that passing loops can be added in future. It would be a lot cheaper to do it now than in the future. Can you imagine how much more patronage a 22 minute Seaford-City service would receive compared to the current 47 minute "express" service.

The 47 minute journey is for the fast to Woodlands Park then all stations to Seaford services. The peak skip stop services which omit 6 or 8 stops take 46 minutes. The peak fast trains which have 5 intermediate stops achieve 38 minutes. This indicates that a non stop Seaford on the existing track can be done in about 32 minutes. Reducing this time to 22 minutes would require serious realignment to eliminate the current speed restrictions at the various curves such as Edwardstown, Warradale and Hove, at the stations at Brighton and Noarlunga and on the Onkaparinga Viaduct.

ChillyPhilly wrote: What about using track switching?

By track switching do you mean bidirectional operation using the existing twin track? This would introduce the capacity constraints of single line working and speed restrictions at crossovers unless high speed crossovers are used.

mawsonguy wrote:The plan removes a road choke point but creates a rail choke point. There is no provision for a passing loop at the station

I dont think the flyeover video is a detailed design, it is only a conceptual design.

This is the reply I received when I emailed the Department of Planning, Transport & Infrastructure regarding the design for the Oaklands Crossing Upgrade.
"As you know the project funding was announced on 7 June and the project is in early planning. Constructability review and final designs are yet to be completed. They will determine the final footprint, scope and construction methods for the project."

Do you know if the public will have a say on this? IE. Do you expect a feedback/consultation process?

You can give feed back via email on their website http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/RR/ ... s_crossing
Other than that, I have no idea.

Surveyors on site

The animation has been updated, with a different roof design: https://youtu.be/LJi4EifOWtU

Still thinking they missed a trick by not running a flyover for Morphett Rd northbound or Oaklands Rd southbound.

Weatherill's just posted on his Facebook page that Public Transport Projects Alliance will build the underpass.

Detailed design starts immediately, major construction to start mid-year

Brucetiki wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:37 pm

Weatherill's just posted on his Facebook page that Public Transport Projects Alliance will build the underpass.

Detailed design starts immediately, major construction to start mid-year

Am I right in suggesting that there are less delays, costs and risks involved with building a rail underpass instead of an overpass?