Sensational-Adelaide.com

monotonehell wrote:

Aidan wrote:No, the line would be far better without that bridge and station. Street running through the centre of Port Adelaide would be a much better option. Did you ever see the file my .sig links to? I explained it in more detail there.
...
Unfortunately the DTEI don't think the line's suitable for conversion to light rail. Hence the idiotic plan for the dual voltage tram trains. I suspect it's only a matter of time before this is dropped in favour of heavy rail only.

Yes I have looked at your plans for the line. Street running light rail would have some benefits, if it would fit into the narrow streets there. But, I didn't mention it at the time as it was moot, I didn't see how you intended to get a light rail line over Jervois Bridge and then turn 90 degrees and come back down in elevation to align with Causeway road without a new bridge alongside the existing one, at great expense and considering the new maina development under the bridge there.

Simple: now that the new bridge is open, there's not so much traffic through the streets of Port Adelaide, and it doesn't need four lanes on the Jervois Bridge. So it could be confined to the southern 2 lanes, with the tramway taking over the northern half of the bridge.

A new ramp up would then be constructed where the railway now is, with a diversion via Semaphore enabling services to continue during the closure. Afterwards the Semaphore diversion would become a loop.

With regard to the line's future status, I understood that the high cost to revenue of that line was the reason for the desire to change it to lightrail. Looks like the number crunching didn't add up.

The reason to change it to light rail is that it could better penetrate the centre of Port Adelaide (an extremely important destination for Lefevre Peninsula commuters) and have more stops beyond Taperoo (where the ratio of passengers using the station to passengers on the train is higher than elsewhere.

The DTEI people seem to think cost is a good reason to stick with heavy rail. But light rail does not have to be that expensive, and can certainly be constructed for less than they envisaged.

fabricator wrote:

Aidan wrote: Converting the line to light rail is a far better option, and it wouldn't've required such a long closure.

Thanks I needed a laugh
Lets see, dig up Port Adelaide roads to lay tracks - 3 Months

That figure looks to be a bit on the high side, but even if it's right, so what? It doesn't require any line closure.

Rebuild all the station platforms to suit trams - 4 months.

I seem to recall all the station platforms on that line are much longer than what's actually used. So while some short closures may be required, prolonged closures should not.

Order enough trams to run the new service - 2 years.

The trains would continue running while this happens.

Install overhead wire - lets say 2 months.

OK. Again most of the time the trains can keep running.

Good luck doing it all at once, what with the road digging making a right mess of the substitute bus service.

Only the regauging, rail reprofiling, installation of new turnouts, and the finishing touches to the stations would require the substitute buses to run - and by then road digging would not be needed.

The other set of numbers that didn't stack up is the amount of time level crossings would be down while trams went through. I did the same calculations myself and got the same numbers, the boom gates would spend more time down than up.

It would result in the boom gates being closed a lot more of the time, but your conclusion seems rather high, at least for the initial service. What assumptions did you use?

I thought by now we would have realised that arguing with aidan is like arguing with a brick wall

anyway, they seem to be fitting a new roof over the bridge where it passes over commerical road.

iTouch(myself) wrote:who's Michael Ransom? Hes hilarious and a great troll!!

Yea that was me. But that is not my real name.

Join this group on facebook (if you have one) http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/page ... all&ref=ts

Why not just have a tunnel for the tram down Port rd? Would make Aidan happy

Tonsley213 wrote:Join this group on facebook (if you have one) http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/page ... all&ref=ts

Your doing I take it, part prank (at the expense of the Outer Harbor group), part serious. Nice work

Here, some more photos to use if you want them.

Thank you

Fabricator, where is your second photo (above) shot from?

Westside wrote:Fabricator, where is your second photo (above) shot from?

dont know why I know this but I thinks its Tonsley. The rails are rusted as the trains stop before that spot

Yes the seccond shot is at Tonsley, it is from the former turn out for the car factory that is/was there.

jk1237 wrote:

Westside wrote:Fabricator, where is your second photo (above) shot from?

dont know why I know this but I thinks its Tonsley. The rails are rusted as the trains stop before that spot

The stop board is 2/3rd of the way down the platform, and the points are beyond that. Its a backshunt so locomotives could swap ends on freight trains to the car plant. There is a second point some distance north of the station, which is also disconnected, but has been re-sleepered.

Elizabeth and Munno Para station upgrade - weather resistant shelters, pedestrian overpass with lifts, improved lighting, car park improvements, kiss and go facilities, CCTVs, passenger info systems and better access to bus interchange. To be honest i dont the idea of pedestrian overpass with lifts, i would prefer to see automated pedestrian crossings installed.

Straze wrote:Elizabeth and Munno Para station upgrade - weather resistant shelters, pedestrian overpass with lifts, improved lighting, car park improvements, kiss and go facilities, CCTVs, passenger info systems and better access to bus interchange. To be honest i dont the idea of pedestrian overpass with lifts, i would prefer to see automated pedestrian crossings installed.

The renders are here: http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov. ... 0_2010.htm

Munno Para:




Elizabeth: