Sensational-Adelaide.com

After having to change it because the Market Arcade development progressed beyond the stage where it was compatible, I've finally completed a plan for a railway under the City (and to Edwardstown) designed to minimise construction costs and maximise utility:
http://track11.com.au/RevisedAlignment.html

Seeking comments and questions before I alert the government and media etc.

Aidan wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:28 am

After having to change it because the Market Arcade development progressed beyond the stage where it was compatible, I've finally completed a plan for a railway under the City (and to Edwardstown) designed to minimise construction costs and maximise utility:
http://track11.com.au/RevisedAlignment.html

Seeking comments and questions before I alert the government and media etc.

Why the westerly alignment through Keswick and Glandore? Most other proposals have the loop joining the South lines between Mile End and Keswick thus serving Showgrounds and Goodwood (interchange for Belair). Your alignment takes the line through the vicinity of the northern portal of the southern tunnel of the T2D motorway and the tram crossing.

Combining works with the NS Motorway construction wil save money.
This alignment avoids tight curves in the suburbs, diverts Seaford trains away from some busy level crossings, and interchanges with tram (and bus) services in the suburbs as well as the City. It also directly serves Keswick Terminal and enables redevelopment west of there.

Aidan wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:38 pm

Combining works with the NS Motorway construction wil save money.

That ship has sailed

When your centre left government has little to no interest in public transport investment I don’t see a world where something on this scale happens.

Tell 'em they're dreamin'.

At least he's having a go, this is the Vision thread after all. Good luck Aiden, it might at least get some momentum going.

CITY STATION DETAILS:
Adelaide Station:
Under North Terrace, adjacent to the existing station.
On 2 levels, eventually giving cross platform interchange between Line 1 (the one I've mapped) and Line 2 (linking to the existing Flinders Line, then Norwood and possibly eventually the Murraylands when suburbs are built there)
To avoid the need for ongoing dewatering, the top platform will be wider than the bottom one, so that the tracks aren't directly above each other.
The main direction of entrance (and exit) would be at the eastern end of the station, with possible connections to the existing underpass as well as travelators to the intersection with King William Street.
A second entrance (and exit – all entrances will function as exits unless otherwise specified) would be near the Convention Centre main entrance.
West of there, where there's provision to extend the station, it would not be buried (i.e. there would be no fill between the railway and the road deck) because the ground level is lower. Therefore there would be no opportunity for entrances above the station extension, but a western entrance would be provided beyond the Morphett Street Bridge.

Gallery Station:
Fairly similar layout (even including travelators to KWS), but without the vertical space constraints so both platforms would be the same width and there would be more entrances. Due to cost considerations, a continuous mezzanine would not be provided.
Cross platform interchange with Line 2 would be in the same direction here, and in opposite directions at Adelaide Station.

Frome Street Station:
Tracks still vertically stacked. Platforms on both sides of the tracks to reduce station dwell times, and to enable buildings on both sides of the street to link directly to the station. Provision for the north end of the station and the south end of the station extension to interchange with bus tunnel stations.

Victoria Square Station:
Tracks still vertically stacked, under Angas/Gouger Street. Platforms on N side (to allow direct access to Victoria Square) but with provision for platforms on S side of to be subsequently added to give cross platform interchange with Line 3 (if and when built)

Elephant and Castle Station:
The tracks would not be vertically stacked, but as the would be deep underground, it is expected this part of the route will differ considerably from what the map. A centre platform may be used instead of side platforms.
NOTE: if construction cost were the only consideration, the station would instead run N-S beneath (and immediately west of) Avoca Street/Collins Street and probably be called South Gilbert Whitmore. However that alignment would result in significantly slower journey times.

Aidan, an underground city loop is not a good solution. You have two suburban lines that can easily go through the city. Very expensive yes, but you are looking at projects for the next 50 years when our population is 2 million (or more). Have a look at some of the concepts I put together in this thread (https://sensational-adelaide.com/forum/ ... 50#p213765) and pick the one you like best and possibly tweak it. There are some comments there from others but I never saw any comment from you. Perhaps I posted them in the wrong forum.

There are other solutions (concepts) depending on how far you want to go with underground rail. Our biggest problem is we haven't planned properly for any of this in the past with the spaces required. An example is the ASER and the redevelopment of Festival Plaza and the Le Cornu site in North Adelaide or any other major building development in the CBD over the last 20-30 years that could have left openings to concourses below. Our best bets now are in the squares, Adelaide Oval and places with (quick and easy) construction access. Also take into consideration where future residential buildings will go. The TODs. The Keswick Parklands Terminal is a good idea and can be redeveloped to have different levels. Same as in many other places that are relatively still open. We need to view things from three perspectives: below ground, ground and above ground for any future development to combine underground rail (and interchanges). Singapore has this right.

Anyhow plenty to think about.

Cheers

Ho Really, did you even look at my plan?
'Tis not intended to be a loop, but rather an extension of the Gawler line through the City, then through Keswick and alongside South Road, joining the Seaford line around Edwardstown.
It also includes building two of the stations for a second line, which would link to the Flinders line and to Norwood and beyond.

I have tried to take advantage of planned developments — if you look at the map you may notice it would run under the Masonic development on North Terrace. I had intended it to have a station under Market Arcade, but unfortunately I took too long so had to divert the line under Angas/Gouger Street instead.

Sorry about the lack of feedback on your plans — I haven't been very active on this site this year. Having had a quick look at it, my impressions are:
• Some of your City routes don't serve much of the City!
• Your diagonal City route looks expensive to construct, particularly between Flinders Street and Pirie Street.
• The Currie—Grenfell Street route would be better suited to a bus tunnel than a railway.
• Try walking the Keswick Creek route: you'll see that it's not at all suitable for a transport route — except perhaps a monorail, but it's not even a particularly good route for that!

Aidan wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2024 5:01 pm

Ho Really, did you even look at my plan?
'Tis not intended to be a loop, but rather an extension of the Gawler line through the City, then through Keswick and alongside South Road, joining the Seaford line around Edwardstown.
It also includes building two of the stations for a second line, which would link to the Flinders line and to Norwood and beyond.

I have tried to take advantage of planned developments — if you look at the map you may notice it would run under the Masonic development on North Terrace. I had intended it to have a station under Market Arcade, but unfortunately I took too long so had to divert the line under Angas/Gouger Street instead.

Sorry about the lack of feedback on your plans — I haven't been very active on this site this year. Having had a quick look at it, my impressions are:
• Some of your City routes don't serve much of the City!
• Your diagonal City route looks expensive to construct, particularly between Flinders Street and Pirie Street.
• The Currie—Grenfell Street route would be better suited to a bus tunnel than a railway.
• Try walking the Keswick Creek route: you'll see that it's not at all suitable for a transport route — except perhaps a monorail, but it's not even a particularly good route for that!

what is the point of it?

abc wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2024 6:47 pm

what is the point of it?

Can you be a bit more specific please?
Are you asking about the point of a railway under the City?
Of linking the Gawler and Seaford lines?
Of running it to Edwardstown?
Of the station locations?
Or of my developing the plan?

The point is, step out of the fantasy, and step into the reality.

If this is something you want to seriously present to government, it has to be serious, not just some random lines in a map that looks like a university assignment.

You're better off approaching it from a more rudimentary perspective than full details. Leave that to the actual engineers who know what they're doing.

We know this much. There is a reservation between the two City West university buildings. The North Terrace underground platforms would be located directly underneath the railway station tram stop and likely accessible via the underground walkway to Roma Mitchell House.

Station spacing will be a big consideration.

Use of open spaces to minimise construction costs (cut and cover) - so look at the squares - Hindmarsh and Victoria probably the only two that are viable. I really cannot see any other stations being viable at present given the low density in the city southwest region. The build it and it will come argument doesn't hold up here. It's already built, and it's still low density, despite being a 15 minute walk to the centre of the CBD. The best approach to density uplift will be a tram route. A train station is overkill.

Geology is another consideration.

The less tunnelling, the better, so any southern portal will be likely located at the northern end of the West Terrace Cemetery, adjacent Bradman Drive.

Anything else is just pure fantasy / gold plating. The above is the most realistic. End of story.

Aidan wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:47 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2024 6:47 pm

what is the point of it?

Can you be a bit more specific please?
Are you asking about the point of a railway under the City?
Of linking the Gawler and Seaford lines?
Of running it to Edwardstown?
Of the station locations?
Or of my developing the plan?

yes, the point of a railway under the city

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 17, 2024 7:47 am

The point is, step out of the fantasy, and step into the reality.

If this is something you want to seriously present to government, it has to be serious, not just some random lines in a map that looks like a university assignment.

It is serious. I presume it doesn't look serious to you? If that's the case, then what would cause you to take it more seriously?

You're better off approaching it from a more rudimentary perspective than full details. Leave that to the actual engineers who know what they're doing.

I am an actual engineer!

We know this much. There is a reservation between the two City West university buildings. The North Terrace underground platforms would be located directly underneath the railway station tram stop and likely accessible via the underground walkway to Roma Mitchell House.

We do know about the reservation between those buildings and my plan takes advantage of that. But where to locate stations is something to be decided — they may have been planned, but plans can and should change!

Station spacing will be a big consideration.

Of course! And so will station dwell times. Too few stations means a longer stop will have to be made at each one, limiting line capacity.

Use of open spaces to minimise construction costs (cut and cover) - so look at the squares - Hindmarsh and Victoria probably the only two that are viable. I really cannot see any other stations being viable at present given the low density in the city southwest region. The build it and it will come argument doesn't hold up here. It's already built, and it's still low density, despite being a 15 minute walk to the centre of the CBD. The best approach to density uplift will be a tram route. A train station is overkill.

This plan does have a station at the S end of Victoria Square. But the diagonal routes needed to take greater advantage of the squares are no longer practical. And top down construction methods should make cut&cover stations under roads buildable at reasonable cost.

Thirty years ago your criticism of the relative lack of development in the SW part of the City would've been equally valid around City South, City West, and even the East End. The City is progressing! A railway station would spur redevelopment and reduce car dependence. And not being on the way to anywhere, trams aren't a good solution (unlike the SE part of the City, where they could be the basis of an Unley Road line, for example).

Geology is another consideration.

The less tunnelling, the better, so any southern portal will be likely located at the northern end of the West Terrace Cemetery, adjacent Bradman Drive.

Ease and cost of construction must be balanced against utility. A station near the SW corner of the City is important!

Anything else is just pure fantasy / gold plating. The above is the most realistic. End of story.

The cost of doing this would be far less than the cost of the South Road Motorway, which is a much more striking example of gold plating!