Quote: The route I was thinking of for a Tonsley extension would be to skirt along the western edge of Aberfoyle Park, run south through Happy Valley and then follow the contour to approach Woodcroft and Morphett Vale from the north-east.

I agree that it would be expensive. But that's why you go for passive provision, because there may well come a time when not building it will be even more costly than building it. The post-peak decline in car usage will come, regardless of the attempts of the state ALP regime to hold off making the tough calls with a desperate road building program./quote


If you know where to look, a study was carried out for just that, extending to Flinders, then Aberfoyle Hub and Happy Valley linking up to the old Willunga Line through Morphett Vale.
And yes, it would be expensive, the estimate would put the frighteners on anybody. There is also the issue of Sturt Gorge, if you go over the roads at Tonsley you have to build a viaduct across Sturt Gorge, if you go under the roads, you can get under Sturt Gorge by building at maximum grade to Aderfoyle Park.

Quote: The route I was thinking of for a Tonsley extension would be to skirt along the western edge of Aberfoyle Park, run south through Happy Valley and then follow the contour to approach Woodcroft and Morphett Vale from the north-east.

I agree that it would be expensive. But that's why you go for passive provision, because there may well come a time when not building it will be even more costly than building it. The post-peak decline in car usage will come, regardless of the attempts of the state ALP regime to hold off making the tough calls with a desperate road building program./quote


If you know where to look, a study was carried out for just that, extending to Flinders, then Aberfoyle Hub and Happy Valley linking up to the old Willunga Line through Morphett Vale.
And yes, it would be expensive, the estimate would put the frighteners on anybody. There is also the issue of Sturt Gorge, if you go over the roads at Tonsley you have to build a viaduct across Sturt Gorge, if you go under the roads, you can get under Sturt Gorge by building at maximum grade to Aderfoyle Park.

Cheaper than the current works at Darlington, and practically will have better effects. There is a large number of busses and high number of cars that transit any means possible from these locations to the city. Peak hour transit from these regions into the CBD takes about an hour no matter hour you do it, a train service could cut this significantly. Those that take the train will save 20 or so minutes, and the large number of vehicles removed from South Road will significantly improve flow during peak hours.

Meanwhile the $680 million at Darlington will solve the problem at darlington, and improve transit times to the city by approximately 3 minutes. Pity that the problem is edwardstown. The traffic jam starts at Ayliffs Road and continues to Anzac Highway. Its bumper to bumper, stop start. Ayliffs road itself is no better. Anyone who transits South Road has spent plenty of time staring at Castle Plaza, because you are stuck there for long enough.
Im pretty confident, the Darlington Upgrade wont make a lick of difference to transit times for anyone transitting South Road. Where running the train up the hill, will.

Quote: The route I was thinking of for a Tonsley extension would be to skirt along the western edge of Aberfoyle Park, run south through Happy Valley and then follow the contour to approach Woodcroft and Morphett Vale from the north-east.

I agree that it would be expensive. But that's why you go for passive provision, because there may well come a time when not building it will be even more costly than building it. The post-peak decline in car usage will come, regardless of the attempts of the state ALP regime to hold off making the tough calls with a desperate road building program./quote


If you know where to look, a study was carried out for just that, extending to Flinders, then Aberfoyle Hub and Happy Valley linking up to the old Willunga Line through Morphett Vale.
And yes, it would be expensive, the estimate would put the frighteners on anybody. There is also the issue of Sturt Gorge, if you go over the roads at Tonsley you have to build a viaduct across Sturt Gorge, if you go under the roads, you can get under Sturt Gorge by building at maximum grade to Aderfoyle Park.

Cheaper than the current works at Darlington, and practically will have better effects. There is a large number of busses and high number of cars that transit any means possible from these locations to the city. Peak hour transit from these regions into the CBD takes about an hour no matter hour you do it, a train service could cut this significantly. Those that take the train will save 20 or so minutes, and the large number of vehicles removed from South Road will significantly improve flow during peak hours.

Meanwhile the $680 million at Darlington will solve the problem at darlington, and improve transit times to the city by approximately 3 minutes. Pity that the problem is edwardstown. The traffic jam starts at Ayliffs Road and continues to Anzac Highway. Its bumper to bumper, stop start. Ayliffs road itself is no better. Anyone who transits South Road has spent plenty of time staring at Castle Plaza, because you are stuck there for long enough.
Im pretty confident, the Darlington Upgrade wont make a lick of difference to transit times for anyone transitting South Road. Where running the train up the hill, will.

Problem is, not everyone works in the city, especially people in the outer suburbs. So we need to have both, better roads and better rail access.

Justapax

Your statement "Only a couple of destinations have grown up around the old corridor - the Hallett Cove-Sheidow Park area and the short section where the corridor has been reused at Seaford." had better be conveyed to the residents of Reynella, Morphett Vale and Hackham and places in between east of the South Road through these centres. They might disagree.

Ian

Cheaper than the current works at Darlington, and practically will have better effects. There is a large number of busses and high number of cars that transit any means possible from these locations to the city. Peak hour transit from these regions into the CBD takes about an hour no matter hour you do it, a train service could cut this significantly. Those that take the train will save 20 or so minutes, and the large number of vehicles removed from South Road will significantly improve flow during peak hours.

Meanwhile the $680 million at Darlington will solve the problem at darlington, and improve transit times to the city by approximately 3 minutes. Pity that the problem is edwardstown. The traffic jam starts at Ayliffs Road and continues to Anzac Highway. Its bumper to bumper, stop start. Ayliffs road itself is no better. Anyone who transits South Road has spent plenty of time staring at Castle Plaza, because you are stuck there for long enough.
Im pretty confident, the Darlington Upgrade wont make a lick of difference to transit times for anyone transitting South Road. Where running the train up the hill, will.

You must be making a nice early start to get ahead of the peak if you are getting past the Ayliffes Road junction before running up the smeg of the Edwardstown tailback! Most mornings I'm in that area I see it starting at Bedford Park, on bad days the queue is even piling up on the bottom section of the SExy itself.

Every planner in every first world country would have predicted that the SExy duplication would have this effect of inducing extra road usage instead of reducing it. All because the ALP needs to subsidise a loss-making local car industry building massive yank tanks that nobody wants to buy. Oops, I mean localised versions of massive yank tanks that nobody wants to buy.

Hopefully the end of the local car industry in 2017 will mean the end of these ridiculous attempts at indirect subsidies, starting with putting the toll on the SExy that should have been applied from day one. Pity it will be too late to prevent this project.

Problem is, not everyone works in the city, especially people in the outer suburbs. So we need to have both, better roads and better rail access.

Take CBD commuters out of their cars and onto more appropriate post-1960s modes of transport and there's more space left for everyone else.

On the other hand, building motorways causes congestion instead of relieving it. Every other country in the world has already realised this, now it's time for Australia to wake up and move forward into this century instead of insanely trying the same thing over and over again in a futile attempt to build the first motorway ever to result in reduced congestion.

Justapax

Your statement "Only a couple of destinations have grown up around the old corridor - the Hallett Cove-Sheidow Park area and the short section where the corridor has been reused at Seaford." had better be conveyed to the residents of Reynella, Morphett Vale and Hackham and places in between east of the South Road through these centres. They might disagree.

Ian

The low density dormitory suburbs along the former Willunga rail corridor are not journey destinations though, they are journey origins. If you don't live there, there is absolutely no reason to go there - thank goodness! If you don't have any destinations catered for other than the CBD at the end of the line, any new rail line in the area will be just as successful as the first attempt which was almost^# a complete failure.

A new route approaching the Woodcroft-MV area from around the backside of the Vines golf course and crossing the area along the Bains Road east-west axis with a second stage linking from there to a junction near Christie Downs station would provide more opportunities for local usage than recycling the failed corridor.

# almost = mitigated only by it providing an excellent route for the Coast To Vines bikeway. Even the reuse of the Seaford section is not without problems.

Justapax et al.

Unfortunately what you are proposing needs a social and demographic revolution.

Back in the 50s and 60s the automobile provided and emancipation from being locked in suburbia and bound to public transport. People could travel when they wanted not when a train ran and they could go where they wanted not where the train or tram went.

The suburban mega shopping centres are a case in point.
I have quoted before that when the justification for the Seaford rail extension was being prepared research found at that time that only 10% of journeys from the Seaford area had any focus on the CBD. Hard potential use facts did not justify the extension.

Please do not read any of this as my opposing public transport, I am most certainly in favour of it, not only that I use it where ever possible.

What does need to happen is that we/they need to bring business back to the CBD AND establish other business hubs on the existing public transport network. There need to be more focus of EEEH* activities rather than spreading things along handy roads. (*EEEH = Employment, Education, Entertainment, Health)

Residentially we/they must stop the wanton carving up of the present domestic blocks. Suburbs need wholesale redevelopment much like slum clearance in the UK and elsewhere. We need then build terrace style homes with pedestrian/cycle friendly streets and back lanes for private vehicle access. Set out as two level (three level in some cases because lifts are now relatively inexpensive) terraces there is room for a useful back yard and garaging facing the lane all on a block of about 250-300 sqmtrs.
The present carve up leaves houses (I can't call them homes) squeezed into a useless block of land in a suburb which assumed people and children had a back yard to play in and so are almost devoid of public open spaces.

Public transport is only the tip of a social and demographic iceberg.

Problem is, not everyone works in the city, especially people in the outer suburbs. So we need to have both, better roads and better rail access.

However, there is a large population in Aberfoyle Park, Happy Valley, Reynella, Woodcroft - that specifically are travelling to the City. Its a popular area that people can afford to buy a proper house on a reasonable block on a reasonable CDB wage. The large number of City bound busses and full Park and Ride stations attest to that. A train will only capture the market missed by the busses, because busses take too long. Many more park at Wayville and ride the tram - to the extent that the council is enacting new parking restrictions near the tram line. Remove this traffic from South Road, and you'll have a much better road for those not travelling to the CBD.
And want to fix something? Fix Castle Plaza region. Outside of Peak Hour, the rest of South Road in the region doesnt flow too bad, however, peak hour, or not Peak hour, you'll be stuck at probably all of the 3 traffic lights close together.

Can someone explain why they duplicated the first part of the Tonsley line, it just seemed so unnecessary.

Meanwhile there are stations that are in bad need of an upgrade, like Torrens Park.

Can someone explain why they duplicated the first part of the Tonsley line, it just seemed so unnecessary.

Meanwhile there are stations that are in bad need of an upgrade, like Torrens Park.

It was to do with making it capable of increased frequency and not having to hold up other trains on the mainline (similar to the set up on the Grange line at Woodville)

Heath got in first and got the money spent on Millswood!

Can someone explain why they duplicated the first part of the Tonsley line, it just seemed so unnecessary.

Meanwhile there are stations that are in bad need of an upgrade, like Torrens Park.

It is a little hard to get people to understand that one project is not "at the expense" of another. If a project is raised it is accompanied with a business case to shows it viability, etc. All projects are evaluated on their own merits. Some get a gong and others don't. Some that get a gong are placed in one years Budget and others are deferred. It all comes down to what is affordable in one year or another. However there is not the one versus another evaluation of merit.

Can someone explain why they duplicated the first part of the Tonsley line, it just seemed so unnecessary.

Meanwhile there are stations that are in bad need of an upgrade, like Torrens Park.

It might have something to do with the government's future grand plans . Some of the future grand plans the public don't know about for many years to come.

There has been some talk on the news about 4 weeks ago about extending the train line to flinders hospital if they can find about 80 million ? So they might need a bit of double track on the Tonsley line if this would go ahead .

If they just go to the hospital/Uni, a crossing loop at Clovelly Park would allow a 15 minute service, Tonsley station would close so the grades can be achieved, though a bus/rail interchange could be built  over Sturt Road, though better to just build it at Clov Park. The short bit of duplication allows trains to cross without affecting the main line.
A walk across a la Mawson Lakes would speed up journeys to Adelaide from Aberfoyle etc

If they just go to the hospital/Uni, a crossing loop at Clovelly Park would allow a 15 minute service, Tonsley station would close so the grades can be achieved, ...

The extension would only be in the order of 600-700 metres long with no increase in the number of stations, so no need for an additional crossing loop to achieve four trains an hour now that the double track section from Tonsley Junction to almost Mitchell Park station is in place.

You could expect both of the current Clovelly Park and Tonsley stations to close, being merged into a new Tonsley Park station south of Alawoona Ave and closer to the centre of the Tonsley Park precinct.

though a bus/rail interchange could be built  over Sturt Road, though better to just build it at Clov Park. ... A walk across a la Mawson Lakes would speed up journeys to Adelaide from Aberfoyle etc

Reprofiling Flinders Drive to eliminate on-street parking and minor changes to the FMC bus interchange could allow the railway to run in alongside Flinders Drive (next to the multi-storey car park) to an interchange/terminus station there, instead of the current 'concept' of putting the Flinders station in the middle of nowhere on the lower playing fields. An interchange at FMC would be roughly the same distance off route as an interchange at Tonsley Park for Sturt Road buses, significantly closer for Main South Road buses, and on the route for all the buses going to/from Flinders Uni.

For what it's worth......

Jobs & Growth

The Turnbull Government will drive jobs and growth in South Australia by investing $43 million in the Flinders Link project – part of an $85 million extension to the Tonsley rail line.
The Flinders Link project will link the vibrant urban villages and employment centres of Tonsley Innovation Park and the Flinders Medical and University precinct – and for the first time connect the Flinders University campus to the Adelaide metropolitan rail network.

The project extends the existing rail line, which will now terminate at a new transport interchange next to the Flinders Medical Centre. The existing Tonsley Station will be removed. The project also incorporates a shared pedestrian and cycle path providing better connectivity between Flinders Medical Centre and the Flinders University campus and Tonsley Innovation Park.

For what it's worth......

Jobs & Growth

So Malcolm ticks off Vote buying for Boothby

So Malcolm ticks off Vote buying for Boothby

It still relies on Weatherill coming up with the rest of the money doesn't it.

I've had Christopher Pyne looking at me where-ever I went today... creepy, like a clown without make-up. Apparently he "GETS RESULTS FOR ADELAIDE".

So Malcolm ticks off Vote buying for Boothby

That's certainly the way it's being seen but I'm not sure how much benefit to Boothby voters it will be.  I'd expect that most using the rail facility when complete will not be from the electorate and nor are workers involved in construction likely to be overwhelmingly local.

I live in Boothby, just minutes from a rail station but I'd have to travel to Goodwood or Showgrounds to connect, when I can just jump on a bus also from the station and go direct.

I'm very much in favour of the rail extension, particularly if it can be well integrated with the existing bus interchanges at Flinders Uni and FMC.  I just don't see it as any great boon to Boothby voters specifically.

Richard.

Can someone explain why they duplicated the first part of the Tonsley line, it just seemed so unnecessary.

Meanwhile there are stations that are in bad need of an upgrade, like Torrens Park.

One simple reason is so they could get trains clear of the Seaford line if a train is delayed returning from Tonsley. Personally I am not sure the double track needed to have extended beyond Daws Road LX but they have added a few more hundred metres.

Doesn't even appear on the Government's own Infrastructure Australia priority listing released in February this year. I think it is what is known as the Mirabella factor.

So Malcolm ticks off Vote buying for Boothby

I would say doing the Oaklands Park rail crossing grade separation would be a far better vote buyer.

So Malcolm ticks off Vote buying for Boothby

It still relies on Weatherill coming up with the rest of the money doesn't it.

I've had Christopher Pyne looking at me where-ever I went today... creepy, like a clown without make-up. Apparently he "GETS RESULTS FOR ADELAIDE".

I'd rather see Christopher Pyne than Janie Briggs. Sometimes there is Jamie and Malcom in the same corflute. That's nasty...

Irrespective of priorities like Tonsley extension or Morphogonal Road grade separation or electoral cynicism there are some questions:-
In rail and public transport sense.

• Is it something that pro rail persons like?
• Is the Tonsley extension going to work?
• Will it be of value?
• Will it have a downgrading effect of the Seaford services due to more trains between ARS and Sturt Junction?
• Are there enough EMUs?

The Tonsley extension was mooted locally a few months back so it was not something Malcolm pulled out of his pork barrel. If it is ever going to get done, now is the time to do it.

As for Morphogonal Road grade separation it has a few problems

• Is taking rail over road the best solution?
• Can the Seaford system stand the kind of suspension that would be required for an over-pass? (It is another Goodwood underpass length suspension)
• Can Heavy rail with HV electrics  be twisted around the works like the temporary tram tracks at South Road?

I suspect that, apart from pretty impressions, planning on this grade separation has not got too far. The longer the Seaford line stays in service the harder it will be to get a prolonged suspension. The political fall-out would be difficult to weather, the users are jaded enough now; see what happened when the power failed.
Whatever happens there will be land acquisitions which always gives great angst to feed the press.
If a deviation around the works was built it would probably have to use DEMUs of which recent events have shown there are not enough. Perhaps waiting until Gawler is electrified would release some DEMUs.

IMHO the right course is to take both roads over the railway with a decent intersection where the supermarket is located. Needs a lot of land acquisition but would make a good job of it.

Ian

Irrespective of priorities like Tonsley extension or Morphogonal Road grade separation or electoral cynicism there are some questions:-
In rail and public transport sense.

1. Is it something that pro rail persons like?
2. Is the Tonsley extension going to work?
3. Will it be of value?
4. Will it have a downgrading effect of the Seaford services due to more trains between ARS and Sturt Junction?
5. Are there enough EMUs?

My suggested answers:

1. Who cares? It's for people wanting to get from A to B, not just blinkered pro-rail people.
2. If it resembles the form seen on the concept images so far with the station out on the uni oval, no. It's a lengthy trek from the university, hospital and bus interchange. It will work if it curves to the right after crossing Main South Road towards a single platform station between the multi-storey car park and a reprofiled Flinders Drive, close to the hospital, bus connections and the Bedford Park residential area.
3. If it is done right with an appropriately located terminus, yes.
4. No. There is plenty of capacity for the Flinders line to have 4 trains/hour (up from the current 2 Tonsley trains/hour) in the off-peak times, and the Seaford peak trains could maintain the same number of seats/hour as the current 8 trains/hour offer by switching to 6 trains/hour (to accommodate the additional 2tph to Flinders) and running at least two trains in the peak hour with double consists.
5. Yes, only one more EMU would be needed in service to maintain the total seats/hour to Seaford and add the extra 2tph to Flinders.

As for Morphogonal Road grade separation it has a few problems

1. Is taking rail over road the best solution?
2. Can the Seaford system stand the kind of suspension that would be required for an over-pass? (It is another Goodwood underpass length suspension)
3. Can Heavy rail with HV electrics  be twisted around the works like the temporary tram tracks at South Road?

On the Morhpagonal Road grade separation:

1. Yes. Only in SA would we consider a bit of short term pain so bad that we would opt for a permanently ugly and inferior solution with a far bigger footprint. As you say yourself, a road-over-rail option would require two road bridges of four lanes each, and consume in excess of an entire supermarket's worth of space.
2. No need for a massive suspension, just a period with bidirectional running on a single track (which would not need to compromise capacity as double consists could be used to substitute for frequency) and a couple of short periods with short bustitutions between Warradale and a temporary platform nearer the former Oaklands station location and appropriate shortcuts installed like they were last time that line was closed.
3. No need to have tracks 'twisted around the works' as there would be about four metres of clearance between the current alignment of the Up track and the new alignment of the Down track overpass due to the need to build the station and shared path overpass between. Plenty of room to keep the current Up track going with bidirectional running while the Down track overpass is built, and then to swap to bidirectional working over the Down track overpass while the station and Up track are constructed.

IMHO the right course is to take both roads over the railway with a decent intersection where the supermarket is located. Needs a lot of land acquisition but would make a good job of it.

And you think that building a massive overpass on top of an operating 25kV railway is any more feasible than having one track operating a few metres to the side of the opposite track's overpass being built?

In any case, Coles holds the cards there as they could comfortably out-lawyer the SA government if the price was not enough to acquire land for a suitable replacement location.

In any case, Coles holds the cards there as they could comfortably out-lawyer the SA government if the price was not enough to acquire land for a suitable replacement location.

What has Coles got to do with it? The nearest point owned by Coles is across an open area under the control of The Minister for Transport.

This project doesn't seem to have been through through. The images on the Infrastructure SA website show a new station adjacent to an existing multistorey car park. There is no provision for connecting buses. The station is over a 250 m walk from the entrance to the public hospital and existing bus stops.

How is it intended that passengers get to the station ?
How would bus circulation work ?
Would it be feasible to connect to South Road buses that are not making the deviation into the hospital, simply by including a lift on the western side of South Road, from which passengers could walk across the bridge on the shared path to the station ?
What would be the additional bus operating costs of whatever bus circulation is planned ?
How to the elderly or sick make the 250 m walk to the public hospital entrance (and then a further up to several hundred metres to their destination within the hospital) ?
How do students travel the 700+ m to the campus ? This distance is at the limits of what would normally be considered the walkable distance from a destination, and it is uphill.

This is a logistical mess. My personal view is that it is better to locate the station above Flinders Drive adjacent to the public hospital entrance and existing bus stops, rather than include yet another destination for buses to stop at.

http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/nsc/darlington_upgrade_project