News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[I Follow PAFC]

Reduced train services due to industrial action.

All attendees of the Saturday 13 April match are advised that there will be impacts to train services due to industrial action being taken by some drivers.

[ChillyPhilly]

I hope Gather Round in Lyndoch helps to make an issue of rail infrastructure in SA. This could form some important commentary if it's kept in the public conscience, and could time well for the next State Election if there is enough momentum.

Agreed. Amidst all the tall promises of rail to Mount Barker and the stalled extension to Aldinga, rail to the Barossa and Roseworthy would by far be the easiest additions to the network.

I'm curious - what do people see as the purpose of bringing back rail services to Roseworthy and the Barossa Valley?

I provide some ideas/response below.

• Is it so that those areas can lose their "country charm" and become more sprawling suburbs full of detached housing for people who commute further to the Adelaide CBD?

SA has planning legislation that can protect these areas - let's use it. This could form political leverage for better planning, as McLaren Vale can be used as an effective model for this legislation.

• Is it to provide local public transport between the various Barossa towns, Roseworthy, Concordia to the Gawler and Elizabeth CBDs?

Absolutely - but also gives a sustainable, more affordable and safer choice that currently does not exist. If spur lines to Roseworthy/Concordia/Barossa are constructed, Gawler could become a major passenger railway hub. This would be transformative.

• Is it for tourism (including Gather Round)?

Yes, making the Barossa more accessible. If we expand the vision for passenger rail in this context, an overseas cruise ship passenger visiting could travel by train from Outer Harbor to the Barossa.

• Is it to get trucks off our roads?

I believe freight should be rerouted to a new corridor that bypasses Adelaide and the Mt Lofty Ranges to the east. Trucks would remain on the roads for the time being, but would benefit from less cars.

• Have I missed other purposes?

General economic and environmental benefit. Longer term, the status quo will cost more economically, environmentally and socially than providing public and active transport options.

All of those need the rails reinstated, but the services "above the rail" would be quite different for each case, and the connecting services and facilities would be different. I'm not a fan of turning the Barossa Valley (or Mount Barker or McLaren Vale) into dormitory suburbs of Adelaide.

[SBD]

Agreed. Amidst all the tall promises of rail to Mount Barker and the stalled extension to Aldinga, rail to the Barossa and Roseworthy would by far be the easiest additions to the network.

I'm curious - what do people see as the purpose of bringing back rail services to Roseworthy and the Barossa Valley?

I provide some ideas/response below.

• Is it so that those areas can lose their "country charm" and become more sprawling suburbs full of detached housing for people who commute further to the Adelaide CBD?

SA has planning legislation that can protect these areas - let's use it. This could form political leverage for better planning, as McLaren Vale can be used as an effective model for this legislation.

I haven't seen evidence that this is used for the purpose it's intended. I see we need to add Freeling to the list as some farmland is designated for new housing close to the railway station. The release explicitly says it's outside of the character and food protection zones.

• Is it to provide local public transport between the various Barossa towns, Roseworthy, Concordia to the Gawler and Elizabeth CBDs?

Absolutely - but also gives a sustainable, more affordable and safer choice that currently does not exist. If spur lines to Roseworthy/Concordia/Barossa are constructed, Gawler could become a major passenger railway hub. This would be transformative.

The stations in the 4 main Barossa towns, plus Gawler Central (and Stockwell and Truro if we are thinking that far) are positioned reasonably close to the business centres of those towns. I have trouble seeing them as useful for people who live in one town and want services from another though. It's 2km from the station to Nuriootpa High School for example, and 3km from Tanunda station to Faith College.

• Is it for tourism (including Gather Round)?

Yes, making the Barossa more accessible. If we expand the vision for passenger rail in this context, an overseas cruise ship passenger visiting could travel by train from Outer Harbor to the Barossa.

We had a tourist train to the Barossa a few decades ago and it wasn't successful. I assumed because the tourist destinations aren't walking distance from the stations. Do you think it would work better with cruise ships?

• Is it to get trucks off our roads?

I believe freight should be rerouted to a new corridor that bypasses Adelaide and the Mt Lofty Ranges to the east. Trucks would remain on the roads for the time being, but would benefit from less cars.

You have answered for intercity freight, which wouldn't be on the Barossa railway anyway and a lot is already on the ARTC lines. I meant about reinstating mixed goods trains and a goods car for supermarket resupply, parcels, export of wine etc.

• Have I missed other purposes?

General economic and environmental benefit. Longer term, the status quo will cost more economically, environmentally and socially than providing public and active transport options.

All of those need the rails reinstated, but the services "above the rail" would be quite different for each case, and the connecting services and facilities would be different. I'm not a fan of turning the Barossa Valley (or Mount Barker or McLaren Vale) into dormitory suburbs of Adelaide.

The Barossa Trail between Nuriootpa and Angaston is on the former railway alignment, and I expect does encourage active transport between those towns. It has a gentle gradient and no sharp bends.When it was built, the railway was still in use through Nuriootpa to Gawler, so the Barossa Trail is adjacent to the railway (but not on the formation) or on a scenic detour near Jacobs Creek. It does not encourage active transport as it's too narrow and hilly. It's nice for a scenic wander, but not really for a serious commute. Tourists do use it on bikes, and locals for walking for exercise.

[dbl96]

I'm curious - what do people see as the purpose of bringing back rail services to Roseworthy and the Barossa Valley?

• Is it so that those areas can lose their "country charm" and become more sprawling suburbs full of detached housing for people who commute further to the Adelaide CBD?
• Is it to provide local public transport between the various Barossa towns, Roseworthy, Concordia to the Gawler and Elizabeth CBDs?

The new housing developments under construction around Roseworthy are projected to to eventually add 12,000 people to the area. A Gawler to Roseworthy extension would be a similar length to the Seaford to Aldinga extension, so not unrealistic.

But unlike Aldinga you have the chance to build a quality transport link in anticipation of the new people so that they’re not forced to drive because there’s no convenient alternative.

Fast forward a decade or so and Roseworthy will be looking a lot like Aldinga does now.

It's my opinion only, but I can only see the likes of Roseworthy and Two Wells etc being successful, and I mean by success is that it's a service that justifies heavy rail. By that, I mean that it ceases to be something that trams could do, but something that only heavy rail can. That is, long trains packed with passengers travelling at high speeds. That is something trams simply cannot do.

To make that happen, trains have to give people a reason to leave their cars. At the moment, trains are so slow over their routes, there's almost no incentive for someone to switch to trains. The service can never be successful if it relies on people who have no choice...and heavy rail fans. There's simply not enough of those for success.

The only way I could see heavy rail being successful is to run a schedule speed of 90kph or better. It could be done with limited stops and feeder buses to those stops. However, I see neither the political will, nor support among heavy rail supporters for that. So, I suspect it won't happen.

To show how little enthusiasm there is, it would be extremely simple to run a trial such as Gawler, Elizabeth Salisbury Adelaide Railway Station at high speed using excess diesel railcars for a few months to test the theory. Along with trial feeder buses to test that aspect too.

Simple and cheap. If it works, leverage that to argue for Roseworthy and Two Wells. If not, then forget rail to either. Because if a trial is a flop, then the extension to Roseworthy won't happen, and so no point in wasting further time.

I agree that increasing rail speeds is a priority, but removing stations is not the only (or the ideal) way to do this. Gawler line station spacing is mostly 1-2km apart - perfectly normal for urban heavy rail or modern metro rail. Yes, there are a small number of stations which it would make sense to remove (Green Fields, I'm looking at you in particular), but station spacing generally makes sense. Removing a lot of stations would mean a massive downgrade of service for most of the catchment of the line, and it would greatly reduce the capacity for urban uplift along the line.

Urban rail with similar or even closer station spacing is operated elsewhere at much higher speeds than in Adelaide. 80kmph is standard for modern metro systems, which typically have similar station spacing to the Gawler line. Part of the issue is the trains themselves - the trains that are currently in use on the Gawler line are modified VLine Vlocity sets. They are designed for high speed cruising on country routes, not stop-start operation in urban areas. They don't have the rapid acceleration and deceleration you get from lighter metro-style trains. Adelaide also seems to have a lot of very conservative track speed restrictions. We could probably do away with these if the lines were properly fenced off and grade-separated. It baffles me that despite all the recent cases of pedestrians being killed by trains, Adelaide continues to insist on using pedestrian level crossings. I can't think of anywhere else in Australia where this is allowed. Even at stations where there are pedestrian overpasses/underpasses, there are often also pedestrian level crossings which people can choose to use. Rather than investing in the alternatives, Adelaide currently prefers to restrict train speeds.

If it comes to restarting regional rail, like to the Barossa, or to Freeling/Kapunda, it wouldn't make sense to timetable these services as extensions to the existing suburban network. They should operate as standalone services, which are express in the metro area, with stops only at Adelaide, Salisbury, Elizabeth and Gawler. They should use trainsets which are suitable for high speed cruising. With track upgrades on the segments beyond the metro area, and new passing loops in the metro area, it should easily be possible to acheive speeds of 90+kmph, as desired.

[rubberman]

The new housing developments under construction around Roseworthy are projected to to eventually add 12,000 people to the area. A Gawler to Roseworthy extension would be a similar length to the Seaford to Aldinga extension, so not unrealistic.

But unlike Aldinga you have the chance to build a quality transport link in anticipation of the new people so that they’re not forced to drive because there’s no convenient alternative.

Fast forward a decade or so and Roseworthy will be looking a lot like Aldinga does now.

It's my opinion only, but I can only see the likes of Roseworthy and Two Wells etc being successful, and I mean by success is that it's a service that justifies heavy rail. By that, I mean that it ceases to be something that trams could do, but something that only heavy rail can. That is, long trains packed with passengers travelling at high speeds. That is something trams simply cannot do.

To make that happen, trains have to give people a reason to leave their cars. At the moment, trains are so slow over their routes, there's almost no incentive for someone to switch to trains. The service can never be successful if it relies on people who have no choice...and heavy rail fans. There's simply not enough of those for success.

The only way I could see heavy rail being successful is to run a schedule speed of 90kph or better. It could be done with limited stops and feeder buses to those stops. However, I see neither the political will, nor support among heavy rail supporters for that. So, I suspect it won't happen.

To show how little enthusiasm there is, it would be extremely simple to run a trial such as Gawler, Elizabeth Salisbury Adelaide Railway Station at high speed using excess diesel railcars for a few months to test the theory. Along with trial feeder buses to test that aspect too.

Simple and cheap. If it works, leverage that to argue for Roseworthy and Two Wells. If not, then forget rail to either. Because if a trial is a flop, then the extension to Roseworthy won't happen, and so no point in wasting further time.

I agree that increasing rail speeds is a priority, but removing stations is not the only (or the ideal) way to do this. Gawler line station spacing is mostly 1-2km apart - perfectly normal for urban heavy rail or modern metro rail. Yes, there are a small number of stations which it would make sense to remove (Green Fields, I'm looking at you in particular), but station spacing generally makes sense. Removing a lot of stations would mean a massive downgrade of service for most of the catchment of the line, and it would greatly reduce the capacity for urban uplift along the line.

Urban rail with similar or even closer station spacing is operated elsewhere at much higher speeds than in Adelaide. 80kmph is standard for modern metro systems, which typically have similar station spacing to the Gawler line. Part of the issue is the trains themselves - the trains that are currently in use on the Gawler line are modified VLine Vlocity sets. They are designed for high speed cruising on country routes, not stop-start operation in urban areas. They don't have the rapid acceleration and deceleration you get from lighter metro-style trains. Adelaide also seems to have a lot of very conservative track speed restrictions. We could probably do away with these if the lines were properly fenced off and grade-separated. It baffles me that despite all the recent cases of pedestrians being killed by trains, Adelaide continues to insist on using pedestrian level crossings. I can't think of anywhere else in Australia where this is allowed. Even at stations where there are pedestrian overpasses/underpasses, there are often also pedestrian level crossings which people can choose to use. Rather than investing in the alternatives, Adelaide currently prefers to restrict train speeds.

If it comes to restarting regional rail, like to the Barossa, or to Freeling/Kapunda, it wouldn't make sense to timetable these services as extensions to the existing suburban network. They should operate as standalone services, which are express in the metro area, with stops only at Adelaide, Salisbury, Elizabeth and Gawler. They should use trainsets which are suitable for high speed cruising. With track upgrades on the segments beyond the metro area, and new passing loops in the metro area, it should easily be possible to acheive speeds of 90+kmph, as desired.

Hi, I don't think we are disagreeing actually. The context was extension to the likes of Roseworthy and the Barossa (and I added Two Wells). As you point out, these are the types of train that are suited to running the longer distances. My idea was for a trial. The aim being to see whether or not a fast service would actually attract more people to heavy rail. So, a trial simply doesn't affect those smaller stations you refer to. A trial of a fast train from Gawler to Adelaide with stops at Elizabeth and Salisbury would show one way or another whether a fast service could attract enough passengers. If a trial was successful, and drew sufficient extra patronage, that would strengthen the case for extension to Roseworthy etc etc. On the other hand, if you couldn't get extra patronage from Gawler, then frankly, everyone needs to forget about extending passenger services there.

The idea of a trial is to determine whether an extension of heavy rail is going to be successful, or whether it's simply a dream for a few heavy rail fans.

Now, I'm not wanting to stop people dreaming. I'm more a tram fan, and have done plenty of dreaming about things that can't possibly happen as far as tram extensions are concerned. If that's all heavy rail fans want, far be it for me to get in the way.

However, if people want to convince the politicians and doubters, then we need to start with something achievable and practical to get a start.

A trial has a far better chance than expecting the government to spend money on a full extension.

[PD2/20]

It's my opinion only, but I can only see the likes of Roseworthy and Two Wells etc being successful, and I mean by success is that it's a service that justifies heavy rail. By that, I mean that it ceases to be something that trams could do, but something that only heavy rail can. That is, long trains packed with passengers travelling at high speeds. That is something trams simply cannot do.

To make that happen, trains have to give people a reason to leave their cars. At the moment, trains are so slow over their routes, there's almost no incentive for someone to switch to trains. The service can never be successful if it relies on people who have no choice...and heavy rail fans. There's simply not enough of those for success.

The only way I could see heavy rail being successful is to run a schedule speed of 90kph or better. It could be done with limited stops and feeder buses to those stops. However, I see neither the political will, nor support among heavy rail supporters for that. So, I suspect it won't happen.

To show how little enthusiasm there is, it would be extremely simple to run a trial such as Gawler, Elizabeth Salisbury Adelaide Railway Station at high speed using excess diesel railcars for a few months to test the theory. Along with trial feeder buses to test that aspect too.

Simple and cheap. If it works, leverage that to argue for Roseworthy and Two Wells. If not, then forget rail to either. Because if a trial is a flop, then the extension to Roseworthy won't happen, and so no point in wasting further time.

I agree that increasing rail speeds is a priority, but removing stations is not the only (or the ideal) way to do this. Gawler line station spacing is mostly 1-2km apart - perfectly normal for urban heavy rail or modern metro rail. Yes, there are a small number of stations which it would make sense to remove (Green Fields, I'm looking at you in particular), but station spacing generally makes sense. Removing a lot of stations would mean a massive downgrade of service for most of the catchment of the line, and it would greatly reduce the capacity for urban uplift along the line.

Urban rail with similar or even closer station spacing is operated elsewhere at much higher speeds than in Adelaide. 80kmph is standard for modern metro systems, which typically have similar station spacing to the Gawler line. Part of the issue is the trains themselves - the trains that are currently in use on the Gawler line are modified VLine Vlocity sets. They are designed for high speed cruising on country routes, not stop-start operation in urban areas. They don't have the rapid acceleration and deceleration you get from lighter metro-style trains. Adelaide also seems to have a lot of very conservative track speed restrictions. We could probably do away with these if the lines were properly fenced off and grade-separated. It baffles me that despite all the recent cases of pedestrians being killed by trains, Adelaide continues to insist on using pedestrian level crossings. I can't think of anywhere else in Australia where this is allowed. Even at stations where there are pedestrian overpasses/underpasses, there are often also pedestrian level crossings which people can choose to use. Rather than investing in the alternatives, Adelaide currently prefers to restrict train speeds.

If it comes to restarting regional rail, like to the Barossa, or to Freeling/Kapunda, it wouldn't make sense to timetable these services as extensions to the existing suburban network. They should operate as standalone services, which are express in the metro area, with stops only at Adelaide, Salisbury, Elizabeth and Gawler. They should use trainsets which are suitable for high speed cruising. With track upgrades on the segments beyond the metro area, and new passing loops in the metro area, it should easily be possible to acheive speeds of 90+kmph, as desired.

Hi, I don't think we are disagreeing actually. The context was extension to the likes of Roseworthy and the Barossa (and I added Two Wells). As you point out, these are the types of train that are suited to running the longer distances. My idea was for a trial. The aim being to see whether or not a fast service would actually attract more people to heavy rail. So, a trial simply doesn't affect those smaller stations you refer to. A trial of a fast train from Gawler to Adelaide with stops at Elizabeth and Salisbury would show one way or another whether a fast service could attract enough passengers. If a trial was successful, and drew sufficient extra patronage, that would strengthen the case for extension to Roseworthy etc etc. On the other hand, if you couldn't get extra patronage from Gawler, then frankly, everyone needs to forget about extending passenger services there.

The idea of a trial is to determine whether an extension of heavy rail is going to be successful, or whether it's simply a dream for a few heavy rail fans.

Now, I'm not wanting to stop people dreaming. I'm more a tram fan, and have done plenty of dreaming about things that can't possibly happen as far as tram extensions are concerned. If that's all heavy rail fans want, far be it for me to get in the way.

However, if people want to convince the politicians and doubters, then we need to start with something achievable and practical to get a start.

A trial has a far better chance than expecting the government to spend money on a full extension.

The present timetable (which is still based on 90kph max diesel timings) incorporates a number of limited stop peak hour workings which are Adelaide - Mawson Lakes - Salisbury - Elizabeth - Smithfield - Gawler. Although the service is now all electric a revised timetable exploiting the 110 kph max of the electrics has not yet been introduced. By comparison it was about 2 years from the start of Seaford electrics to the introduction or the accelerated timetable.

I would consider metro extensions to Roseworthy and Concordia possible without major infrastructure upgrades. However the single track over the South Para and at Gawler Central would be an impediment to expansion beyond Concordia. To what extent would a trial Adelaide - Gawler assess the market beyond?

Although there were 25 kph restriction until the gated pedestrian crossings were commissioned, I believe the remaining speed restrictions on the Gawler line relate to track curvature such as at Ovingham, Islington, Salisbury and Smithfield.

[Spotto]

If the government isn’t prepared to commit to a proper extension to Roseworthy, even trialling a diesel service between Gawler and Roseworthy would be a great first step as more houses are completed.

Do enough trackworks to get them running at a fair speed on single track, timetable them to sync with current services for easy transfer, and see how things go.

Someday, a train trial to Two Wells with feeder buses linking Riverlea, a station at Virginia, and Angle Vale would be a nice wishlist as well, but a logistical nightmare due to track gauge and ownership.

[SBD]

If the government isn’t prepared to commit to a proper extension to Roseworthy, even trialling a diesel service between Gawler and Roseworthy would be a great first step as more houses are completed.

Do enough trackworks to get them running at a fair speed on single track, timetable them to sync with current services for easy transfer, and see how things go.

Someday, a train trial to Two Wells with feeder buses linking Riverlea, a station at Virginia, and Angle Vale would be a nice wishlist as well, but a logistical nightmare due to track gauge and ownership.

If the metro rail is to be extended to Roseworthy, it probably needs stops at Redbanks Road (for Xavier College) and St Yves, not just at the station in the "old" town. The Redbanks Road station would then need a park'n'ride car park as it will encourage urban sprawl towards Wasleys (if the train doesn't go there) and maybe even Redbanks and Mallala.

[Hooligan]

Someday, a train trial to Two Wells with feeder buses linking Riverlea, a station at Virginia, and Angle Vale would be a nice wishlist as well, but a logistical nightmare due to track gauge and ownership.

I’ve seen this mentioned before and I have to ask, how do you get rail into Angle Vale?

[Spotto]

Someday, a train trial to Two Wells with feeder buses linking Riverlea, a station at Virginia, and Angle Vale would be a nice wishlist as well, but a logistical nightmare due to track gauge and ownership.

I’ve seen this mentioned before and I have to ask, how do you get rail into Angle Vale?

You don’t, hence the feeder buses. There’s already routes that link to Smithfield on the Gawler line, links to a potential station at Virginia would be invaluable if commuter rail ever makes it to Two Wells.

[Spotto]

If the government isn’t prepared to commit to a proper extension to Roseworthy, even trialling a diesel service between Gawler and Roseworthy would be a great first step as more houses are completed.

Do enough trackworks to get them running at a fair speed on single track, timetable them to sync with current services for easy transfer, and see how things go.

Someday, a train trial to Two Wells with feeder buses linking Riverlea, a station at Virginia, and Angle Vale would be a nice wishlist as well, but a logistical nightmare due to track gauge and ownership.

If the metro rail is to be extended to Roseworthy, it probably needs stops at Redbanks Road (for Xavier College) and St Yves, not just at the station in the "old" town. The Redbanks Road station would then need a park'n'ride car park as it will encourage urban sprawl towards Wasleys (if the train doesn't go there) and maybe even Redbanks and Mallala.

Agreed. Which is why commitment to a proper electrified extension with double track and full facilities at new stations would be more ideal over a trial. But even temporary new stations would hopefully be involved in any potential diesel trials.

[Hooligan]

Someday, a train trial to Two Wells with feeder buses linking Riverlea, a station at Virginia, and Angle Vale would be a nice wishlist as well, but a logistical nightmare due to track gauge and ownership.

I’ve seen this mentioned before and I have to ask, how do you get rail into Angle Vale?

You don’t, hence the feeder buses. There’s already routes that link to Smithfield on the Gawler line, links to a potential station at Virginia would be invaluable if commuter rail ever makes it to Two Wells.

Ah, sorry. I misread that lol

[SBD]

I’ve seen this mentioned before and I have to ask, how do you get rail into Angle Vale?

You don’t, hence the feeder buses. There’s already routes that link to Smithfield on the Gawler line, links to a potential station at Virginia would be invaluable if commuter rail ever makes it to Two Wells.

Ah, sorry. I misread that lol

Since we're in the pipe-dream department, it could be served by a new east-west service: Riverlea Park - Virginia - Penfield Gardens - Angle Vale - Hillier - Evanston Gardens - Gawler - Gawler Central - Concordia (Kalbeeba) - Sandy Creek - Lyndoch - Rowland Flat - Tanunda - Nuriootpa - Light Pass - Stockwell - Truro

[rubberman]

I agree that increasing rail speeds is a priority, but removing stations is not the only (or the ideal) way to do this. Gawler line station spacing is mostly 1-2km apart - perfectly normal for urban heavy rail or modern metro rail. Yes, there are a small number of stations which it would make sense to remove (Green Fields, I'm looking at you in particular), but station spacing generally makes sense. Removing a lot of stations would mean a massive downgrade of service for most of the catchment of the line, and it would greatly reduce the capacity for urban uplift along the line.

Urban rail with similar or even closer station spacing is operated elsewhere at much higher speeds than in Adelaide. 80kmph is standard for modern metro systems, which typically have similar station spacing to the Gawler line. Part of the issue is the trains themselves - the trains that are currently in use on the Gawler line are modified VLine Vlocity sets. They are designed for high speed cruising on country routes, not stop-start operation in urban areas. They don't have the rapid acceleration and deceleration you get from lighter metro-style trains. Adelaide also seems to have a lot of very conservative track speed restrictions. We could probably do away with these if the lines were properly fenced off and grade-separated. It baffles me that despite all the recent cases of pedestrians being killed by trains, Adelaide continues to insist on using pedestrian level crossings. I can't think of anywhere else in Australia where this is allowed. Even at stations where there are pedestrian overpasses/underpasses, there are often also pedestrian level crossings which people can choose to use. Rather than investing in the alternatives, Adelaide currently prefers to restrict train speeds.

If it comes to restarting regional rail, like to the Barossa, or to Freeling/Kapunda, it wouldn't make sense to timetable these services as extensions to the existing suburban network. They should operate as standalone services, which are express in the metro area, with stops only at Adelaide, Salisbury, Elizabeth and Gawler. They should use trainsets which are suitable for high speed cruising. With track upgrades on the segments beyond the metro area, and new passing loops in the metro area, it should easily be possible to acheive speeds of 90+kmph, as desired.

Hi, I don't think we are disagreeing actually. The context was extension to the likes of Roseworthy and the Barossa (and I added Two Wells). As you point out, these are the types of train that are suited to running the longer distances. My idea was for a trial. The aim being to see whether or not a fast service would actually attract more people to heavy rail. So, a trial simply doesn't affect those smaller stations you refer to. A trial of a fast train from Gawler to Adelaide with stops at Elizabeth and Salisbury would show one way or another whether a fast service could attract enough passengers. If a trial was successful, and drew sufficient extra patronage, that would strengthen the case for extension to Roseworthy etc etc. On the other hand, if you couldn't get extra patronage from Gawler, then frankly, everyone needs to forget about extending passenger services there.

The idea of a trial is to determine whether an extension of heavy rail is going to be successful, or whether it's simply a dream for a few heavy rail fans.

Now, I'm not wanting to stop people dreaming. I'm more a tram fan, and have done plenty of dreaming about things that can't possibly happen as far as tram extensions are concerned. If that's all heavy rail fans want, far be it for me to get in the way.

However, if people want to convince the politicians and doubters, then we need to start with something achievable and practical to get a start.

A trial has a far better chance than expecting the government to spend money on a full extension.

The present timetable (which is still based on 90kph max diesel timings) incorporates a number of limited stop peak hour workings which are Adelaide - Mawson Lakes - Salisbury - Elizabeth - Smithfield - Gawler. Although the service is now all electric a revised timetable exploiting the 110 kph max of the electrics has not yet been introduced. By comparison it was about 2 years from the start of Seaford electrics to the introduction or the accelerated timetable.

I would consider metro extensions to Roseworthy and Concordia possible without major infrastructure upgrades. However the single track over the South Para and at Gawler Central would be an impediment to expansion beyond Concordia. To what extent would a trial Adelaide - Gawler assess the market beyond?

Although there were 25 kph restriction until the gated pedestrian crossings were commissioned, I believe the remaining speed restrictions on the Gawler line relate to track curvature such as at Ovingham, Islington, Salisbury and Smithfield.

I think that the huge problem with extending to Roseworthy and/or Two Wells is that present schedules are slower than cars, and if there's a greater distance to travel, that makes the difference worse.

I don't believe that an extension is viable unless you can get schedule speeds above that of cars.

At the present rate, it might be an extra twenty minutes by rail from Roseworthy to Adelaide by train compared to car trips. Whereas, with a decent speed, you might get rail to ten minutes faster.

I cannot see any realistic hope for an extension that makes people's trips longer. It won't happen. Who's going to vote for their commute to lengthen? Zero votes, and if few use it, zero use. Forget it, other than a pipe dream.

The question is, therefore, whether an increase in train schedule speed to beat cars will increase passenger numbers. Now that is a pathway to an extension of heavy rail.

The trial would aim to confirm or debunk the idea that pushing speeds higher than average car speeds will attract patronage.

If it confirms that people will shift from cars to heavy rail if speeds are better, that's a clear tick for an extension.

At the moment though, we cannot know what it is. It could be a complete waste of time and money to extend heavy rail, or it could be a winner. A trial that brings travel times below travel by car should do that.

[ml69]

To be honest, I cannot see a business case for urban rail to Virginia and Riverlea ever stacking up, despite being quite a large potential catchment area (40,000+ people). It would be an extension of about 16-17km which you would need to double-track to join it to the existing Gawler line. This is likely to cost in the order of $2-3 billion in today’s $$ (happy to be challenged on the figures).

Instead, I think we could realistically build a dedicated road for high-speed feeder buses along the same route. These feeder buses would commence as local routes in Riverlea then connect to bus stations with park & ride facilities (like Obahn) at Riverlea > Virginia > Direk (Bolivar Rd), interchanging with the Gawler line at Nurlutta. Rebuild Nurlutta as a bus interchange station with timed connection with the Gawler train.

This high-speed feeder bus (with overpasses on the route) would be relatively time competitive with rail. There would be a loss of a few minutes at the point of interchange only. Could be built for a fraction of the cost of rail (therefore business case more likely to succeed), and still provides commuters with a fast journey.

A Concordia rail extension (future catchment 25,000 people) is more likely to go ahead. It’s shorter (approx 7km length) and is a simple extension to the Gawler line.

Roseworthy I think is also unlikely as an urban rail extension. Buses can run along Main North Rd and Horrocks Hwy to connect Gawler Central with Willaston, Hewett, St Yves and Roseworthy. The existing Roseworthy rail alignment isn’t well-located to serve existing population centres.