To add to that they don't cover the whole platform.

The fact that they don't cover the whole platform isn't that important, they're skimping out here in Victoria on putting shelter along platforms (see the "Southland Station" thread), so in comparison the new Wayville station is positively luxurious I'm sure.

It doesn't look suitably long enough for six-carriage sets though which is disappointing; you'd think they would do all the new stations set up for six car sets, especially on the new 'showcase' Seaford line.

The fact that they don't cover the whole platform isn't that important, they're skimping out here in Victoria on putting shelter along platforms (see the "Southland Station" thread), so in comparison the new Wayville station is positively luxurious I'm sure.

I know about Southland Station. I'm Victorian.

Anyway, back on topic...

It doesn't look suitably long enough for six-carriage sets though which is disappointing; you'd think they would do all the new stations set up for six car sets, especially on the new 'showcase' Seaford line.

It is 160 metres long, which is easily enough when two units coupled together come to 151.4 metres. That's a lot more apparent if you see it for real instead of a zoomed low angle photo.

The short 120m platforms at Oaklands are more of a problem which should have been fixed during the shutdown as they'll fit only four cars. To stop a six car train there will require the use of either unit deselect (to leave all doors on all three cars of the rear unit closed) or selective door opening (to open the doors on the front unit and first car of the rear unit). It won't be a major problem, only peak services and post-football trains would demand a double consist so the number of people who'll need to get used to UDS or SDO restrictions will be limited.

Hopefully a proposed grade separation where the rail line crosses Diagonal & Morphett Roads will be a beneficiary of Tony's plan to build the roads of the future, and the replacement station built as part of it could be fit for purpose from the word go!

...
The short 120m platforms at Oaklands are more of a problem which should have been fixed during the shutdown as they'll fit only four cars. To stop a six car train there will require the use of either unit deselect (to leave all doors on all three cars of the rear unit closed) or selective door opening (to open the doors on the front unit and first car of the rear unit). It won't be a major problem, ...

I can remember as a child riding on a peak hour train into Adelaide circa 1963 I assume ex Marino from Ascot Park with 9 cars and often there were 7 cars into the 1970's 2 x 300 sets and a 400. What would have happened at Oaklands then? Would there have been over hang back or forward of the platform let alone the other stations? Just out of interest!

Trevor

It is 160 metres long, which is easily enough when two units coupled together come to 151.4 metres. That's a lot more apparent if you see it for real instead of a zoomed low angle photo.

Okay, thanks for that, it really doesn't look that long from the photos but as you say it's probably the angle.

Apart from Oaklands are there any others along the line less than 160m or have they done the sensible thing and fixed all that -

Just goes to show what a monumental stuff up Oaklands is. They could blame the location of the old island platform but could have built half the new platforms before demolishing the old.
Had the platforms been further back from the Morphett Road alignment there could have been two LXs one each for Diagonal and Morphett roads with intersection by the swimming centre, possibly a round about.

Trevor, I was a daily user of the Marino line from 1960 to 1970 and lived facing the railway line. I do recall any 9 car RHs, just an occasional 7 car set. the only regular 7 car train was the 5:45 ex ARS which was loco hauled ELCs. I used to hang back at Uni so I could catch that train because almost without exception the loco was an 800. It had a good turn of speed and good acceleration even with about 240-250 tons behind it. This was the last loco hauled train operation on the line, it was express to Clarence Park then all stops to Hallett Cove.

In the early/mid 60s there was a loco hauled train in the morning, 6 cars with a 930 which got into Adelaide a bit after 8:00.

In the early 60s the last steam hauled train was an Rx with 3/4 ECLs which left Adelaide about 3:30, I was rarely out of school early enough to catch that.

On retrospect I think there was a 7 car RH set, the 5:18 (5:14?) all stops to Brighton.

What would have happened at Oaklands then? Would there have been over hang back or forward of the platform let alone the other stations?

The present Oaklands station is new and several hundred metres on the down side of the old steam era one, accessed directly from the combined Diagonal/Morphett Roads level crossing. With a complete lack of foresight it was built short of the length necessary for a six car electric train. It is an attractive modern looking station, but is exposed to cold winds and, to a lesser extent, driving wind driven rain. There is no shelter from this.

As with many projects these days, the 'designer' look seems to be the only factor considered when planning new buildings. Why for instance, do the canopies over the platforms have to be so high? We are not ten feet tall. At the platform face the roof should be as close to the train as is safely possible, and there should be wind-breaks around the seats and automatic toilets provided as a matter of course.

While I am on the subject of Oaklands, I will again mention my favourite hobby horse. An overhead station to replace the present very conveniently accessed one would be a total waste of money and a continuing nightmare for every passenger who will have to climb long flights of stairs or ramps or wait for lifts while they miss trains. There is ample open space and there are access roads to make a de facto roundabout around the site to take Diagonal and Morphett roads separately over the existing nearly new station and combine them nearer to Westfield Marion.

Does anyone seriously think that the Abbott government will help finance this expensive proposed white elephant in the sky when they have already declined to finance existing projects here and interstate, and the track record of conservative governments in building infrastructure is so abysmal, even when under Howard, they were rolling in mining boom money? So the traffic nightmare at that crossing will continue. Some of the members of this list may hanker for pretty designs, but I am interested in practicality.

I still hold to the belief that in infrastructure generally this otherwise wonderful country of ours is very second rate indeed.

Why for instance, do the canopies over the platforms have to be so high? We are not ten feet tall. At the platform face the roof should be as close to the train as is safely possible, and there should be wind-breaks around the seats and automatic toilets provided as a matter of course.

The canopies need to be high and open because making them too enclosed provides a private and secluded environment for crime. This is why the residents in the area of Marion station opposed the building of an underpass, because no amount of spin about how 'open' the underpass would be changes the fact that the sunken area is not visible from street level.

While I am on the subject of Oaklands, I will again mention my favourite hobby horse. An overhead station to replace the present very conveniently accessed one would be a total waste of money and a continuing nightmare for every passenger who will have to climb long flights of stairs or ramps or wait for lifts while they miss trains. There is ample open space and there are access roads to make a de facto roundabout around the site to take Diagonal and Morphett roads separately over the existing nearly new station and combine them nearer to Westfield Marion.

There is not, however, room to build the massive ramps needed for road bridges high enough to clear an electrified railway. Such steep ramps would also fly in the face of the Liberal policy that all new federally-funded roads are to include good facilities for active transport, a policy which under the Howard government was responsible for the Patrick Jonker Veloway and the Crafers Bikeway, both very well-utilised active transport routes.

Sinking the roads a small amount of 1-2 metres instead of the current situation where they rise up to the height of the rail crossing would be an option as part of a rebuild. The result of that would be ramps and stairs to the station being half the height and length they would otherwise be, and for people like you coming from the west still faster than the current situation of waiting for the lights.

I am with you SAR526. The roads should go overhead, much less disruption all round.

An elevated roundabout would keep traffic moving if it was a large enough diameter.

Back in 1995 the built two elevated roundabouts in Kuching, Sarawak (East Malaysia) and they worked a treat. Although then half the size of Adelaide it had a much better road system.

I am with you SAR526. The roads should go overhead, much less disruption all round.

An elevated roundabout would keep traffic moving if it was a large enough diameter.

Back in 1995 the built two elevated roundabouts in Kuching, Sarawak (East Malaysia) and they worked a treat. Although then half the size of Adelaide it had a much better road system.

The road can go over the rail, and back to grade without a roundabout, just using an offset T.

Unfortunately as the original concept was unbuildable without a shutdown, and unfundable, with all the funding going to south road, this will not happen anytime soon.

On the Seaford thread AlexC reported signals starting to appear on the Seaford extension.

Yesterday I took a drive beside the tracks between Ascot Park and Woodlands Park. I am pleased report that new signal heads are in (LED type) and the wheel/axle counters installed. The previous IJRs have disappeared. Progress is being made.

I can see little* progress on electrification north of Brighton. (* I am being generous, none actually)
Why is the progress so "stop go"?
Are Liang O'Rourke doing FIFO with a team from interstate?

Some masts will have to be removed and replaced with gantries due to signal sighting issues, see 532, 1531 as examples.

The canopies need to be high and open because making them too enclosed provides a private and secluded environment for crime.

As the safety to which you refer is to be dependent upon observation of the platform by other prospective passengers, how does the height of the canopy matter, so long as it is a few feet above head level? It will provide much better weather protection, and I suggest that most of us don't really like needlessly getting cold and wet.

Having had a very hairy incident while sitting at night in my electric scooter on Goodwood station with a very aggressive deranged or drug affected twenty year old who was there for no good reason, with only a young woman to see what was going on, I fail to see how the clear lines of sight which cause every passenger to feel very cold indeed exposed to the wind on a wintry winter's day are really an asset. However, it is the provision of a weather barrier immediately adjacent to the platform edge so as to come as nearly as possible to train roofs about which I am talking. I don't care if the space behind it is as high as you would like, and I suggest that the new ones in Adelaide are there because their 'designers' (I am loathe to call them architects) like drawing pretty building elevations, but seemingly have never travelled by train in their lives.

Incidentally, my scooter which can climb every other ramp which I have encountered has to be driven up the ramps there with me walking uncomfortably in the narrow space alongside. Why the ramps, steep even for able bodied people, weren't fixed during the long shut down with most of the platform sufacing removed due to the creek diversion and collapse of the face, I do not know. I suggested that in this thread some time ago.

There is not, however, room to build the massive ramps needed for road bridges high enough to clear an electrified railway.
An overpass running northwards from Diagonal Road near Trott Grove along the alignment of Diagonal Way (originally part of Morphett Road) to beyond Osborne Street is perfectly possible. By building walls along the platform alignments rising to the same level as is found in underground stations in many countries, with the overhead contact being by insulated fixed rail rather than catenary wire, the grade would be quite low. This would be constructed in a similar manner to, for instance, the conversion of Box Hill (Melbourne) to a thriving rail oriented business and shopping centre. There would be no loss of the investment already made in a very convenient station and little or no disruption of either rail or road traffic.

Diagonal Road North could be diverted along the already used Prunus Street to a T junction, or diverted across the vacant former service station site to join Morphett Road at any convenient point to the South, preferably via a roundabout.

Incidentally Prunus Street was reserved for just such a purpose until some government cretin permitted the selling of the land on the northern side for housing. Now there will be the need to take some of the unbuilt area along its southern side to the detriment of the hotel and business parking there.

Sinking the roads a small amount of 1-2 metres instead of the current situation where they rise up to the height of the rail crossing would be an option as part of a rebuild. The result of that would be ramps and stairs to the station being half the height and length they would otherwise be, and for people like you coming from the west still faster than the current situation of waiting for the lights.

I am sorry that I am too dim to understand your reasoning. Neither road 'rises up' to the level of the rail crossing. How is a car, let alone a bus or truck, to get under the railway with that scheme? Please enlighten me.

Finally, ('HOORAY' say my patient readers), I would point out that over 30 years of observation, I have concluded that the road traffic, while heavy, is no worse than at many other locations in Adelaide's metropolitan area. It is the removal of conflict with train movements that is the key to the solution of a very long lasting problem, one which won't soon be addressed by building a very expensive and disruptive overhead edifice which the Federal Government is unlikely to subsidize. I am a healthy 84 year old, but I don't think that I will live to see that being built. The other, cheaper, scheme might be.

At the risk of further boring you, I would like to report that I have twice, a week apart, traversed the line between Hove and Marion.

Signalling work is proceeding rapidly, and has every appearance of being 'state of the art' as promised. I have stopped to watch and speak very briefly with men at work and they are not wasting time.

While I still think that the underpass at Marion is an unnecessarily expensive solution as against gated crossings with the extra 'escape' gate lock which I have already suggested, it too is proceeding very rapidly and will be quite an improvement to the station which will probably, however, continue to have its very minimal passenger shelter.

I am getting increasingly impatient with the prolonged loss of what is for me essential transport, but at least the government is trying to give us a long overdue modern rail system. Nevertheless, future closures will not be nearly so well regarded by the long suffering commuters of the South. As for rail patrons in the North..........!

Yes

Yesterday I saw ALOT of signalling works being undertaken at various places along the line (In particular I saw heavy signalling works being undertaken at Oaklands station and Hallet Cove Beach station). The possibility of the line being reopened in October definitely isn't out of the question they are definitely not wasting any time with these signalling works.

Yes

Yesterday I saw ALOT of signalling works being undertaken at various places along the line (In particular I saw heavy signalling works being undertaken at Oaklands station and Hallet Cove Beach station). The possibility of the line being reopened in October definitely isn't out of the question they are definitely not wasting any time with these signalling works.

DPTI told me December, so unless they have forgotten October and November exist (actually that's quite likely) I would think October is out of the question. They might be able to make November, but not even 'Tommy K' would have said 60 days if he thought it might be less than 40.

I think it is the electrification and not the signalling which is causing the delays.

From what I am now seeing and the reports here I suggest the signalling contractor is out to get his works finished and show that it is not they who are the problem; they will probably pick up a nice bonus along the way.
So the line will be finished in December so that it can be closed again in January?

I am sorry that I am too dim to understand your reasoning.

If the cap fits...

Neither road 'rises up' to the level of the rail crossing. How is a car, let alone a bus or truck, to get under the railway with that scheme? Please enlighten me.

The level crossing is on a hump for the road, less than a metre and it was smoothed out when the crossing was rebuilt, but still a noticeable hump. On a bike you lose speed approaching it and gain speed after it.

If you remove that hump and instead sink the road a couple of metres, the rail line overpass would not need to be so high above the current elevation of the rail line as it would be with the road staying where it is. Think of the Goodwood Road underpass, but with a much smaller dip in the road and a modest-height overpass for the rail line (compared to the rail line staying flat at Goodwood Road).

I agree that the concept shown off last year was massively overdone, and that it should not be hard to do a simpler version that would be cheaper than the double-deck structure shown off. Two separate rail bridges diverging either side of a self-supporting wide centre platform. Add two sets of access at each end via a set of stairs and a generous-width full-length ramp built to full shared path standards going down in the centre between the shallower grade rail line ramps. You get the roads done with minimal disruption, you get the rail done with minimal disruption (build one side while keeping a ground-level route open, then build the other), you get a new fit-for-purpose shared path crossing and all without any expensive relocations or buyouts of businesses.

Signalling work is proceeding rapidly, and has every appearance of being 'state of the art' as promised.

Really? I thought I saw poles with colourful lights on them, which gives every appearance of it being tired old tech.

If we went straight to ERTMS Level 2 there would be no lineside signals outside of starters at major station platforms, and when it's all on the driver's in-cab HUD there would be no sighting issues with electrification equipment.

Really? I thought I saw poles with colourful lights on them, which gives every appearance of it being tired old tech.

If we went straight to ERTMS Level 2 there would be no lineside signals outside of starters at major station platforms, and when it's all on the driver's in-cab HUD there would be no sighting issues with electrification equipment.

I had the impression from comments that I read that the new system chosen allows for in cab signal displays. If that is not the case, I agree with you.

Is there a plan to retro HUD into the 3000/3100?

If the cap fits...

Having a professional interest in such things, I know what my IQ and general standard of education (as distinct from a glorified trade qualification) are. I'm quite happy to wear that cap, thank you. Now for re-typing an almost finished reply which suddenly disappeared from the screen.

The level crossing is on a hump for the road, less than a metre and it was smoothed out when the crossing was rebuilt, but still a noticeable hump. On a bike you lose speed approaching it and gain speed after it.

I'll accept your statement about this minimal rise in elevation which I have never noticed in almost daily crossings of the area on foot and on my scooter. Perhaps you are one of the cyclists who illegally overtake me on the footpath without giving warning of their approach, though I don't blame them for staying off the roads wherever possible.

If you remove that hump and instead sink the road a couple of metres, the rail line overpass would not need to be so high above the current elevation of the rail line as it would be with the road staying where it is.

Now that you have explained your idea, I can see what you mean, though it still involves the demolition of the existing station and the climbing of steps and ramps, albeit to a lower level. Disruption to services would be very likely, even with temporary shooflys along the roads. I still think that my proposal (shared by others) is superior and cheaper.

I agree that the concept shown off last year was massively overdone, and that it should not be hard to do a simpler version....... you get a new fit-for-purpose shared path crossing and all without any expensive relocations or buy outs of businesses.

This too would be preferable to the present proposal, but still involves demolition and needless climbing. About the shared path, I am in whole-hearted agreement. I rode a bicycle (which I still have) until I acquired my first car at 30 years of age, riding it daily to university and later bringing it home on the 'Overland' to ride from Norwood to the beaches every holiday. In those days there were continuous one-way bike paths down both Anzac Highway and Port Road which enabled me to keep up a very good turn of speed. I am all for shared/paths and/or veloways and enjoy the scooter journey from Marion to Oaklands along the new path through the wetlands park alongside the  railway which was a real goat track when I used to ride my bike along it.

I had the impression from comments that I read that the new system chosen allows for in cab signal displays. If that is not the case, I agree with you.

ERTMS Level 1 does have a cab display but it's only an assist for the lineside signalling system, like a slightly more detailed version of AWS. Trains without the ERTMS kit can still use the line but probably at restricted speeds.

ERTMS Level 2 is completely different, it's a virtual block system with all the signalling done over the air by GSM-R. The function of the Eurobalise providing the train with just position updates to correct the degradation of the on-board positioning system.

Have you seen if any of the Eurobalises are installed on the track yet? I didn't see any when cycling along the Raglan Ave to Daws Rd section today.

Perhaps you are one of the cyclists who illegally overtake me on the footpath without giving warning of their approach, though I don't blame them for staying off the roads wherever possible.

Hell no, our roads may be dangerous for cyclists but our footpaths are even worse - they are cluttered with stationary and moving obstacles (pedestrians are unpredictable at the best of times) and likely to get punctures in my 23mm racing tyres. I like to ride fast, and footpaths aren't the way to do that.

I'll only ever use one if it's an appropriate link for a few metres between a shared path or side street and a road or rail crossing, and only then at walking pace with one foot unclipped ready to stop completely so it is reasonably defensible as walking rather than riding.

Noticed a pulley sheave mounted at the north end of Edwardstown Station tonight on my way home. There is also a lot of furnishing to the top of the poles along the eastern side. I take it this indicates that the earth cable and return cable are to be jerked shortly.

Noticed a pulley sheave mounted at the north end of Edwardstown Station tonight on my way home. There is also a lot of furnishing to the top of the poles along the eastern side. I take it this indicates that the earth cable and return cable are to be jerked shortly.

That's good to hear - I'd love to see pictures one day if any local correspondent can be bothered one day.  I used to live in that area so I'm particularly interested in what it looks like now with wires running through it.

No wires yet between Daws Road and Raglan Avenue, it's bare masts/gantries only on that section at this point.

They've done an excellent job of uglying up Woodlands Park station though, the old shelter in the middle looks quite out of place with the shiny full-width gantries running over the island platform instead of the plain concrete masts on the two sides only.