Does the issue of platform length with modern (2000, 3000, 4000) railcars arise because of the increased length (25m) of these railcars compared with the shorter length of the Redhens (20m) and loco hauled stock? A modern 6-car set is 150m long compared with the earlier 6-car consists which were only 120m overall. Thus platforms such as on the Gawler line which would have handled the older 6-car sets are not long enough for a modern 6-car.
I can remember travelling around Penfield on another ARHS special of 12 or so cars with 520 taking over from a pair of Rx's There was ample room for us all to hop off and take photos.
Woodville platform has been physically shortened as have some on the Noarlunga line.
I also have photos taken at Salisbury of another mystery trip with a 621 hauled train hauling many centenaries. Plenty of Platform lengths
Some time ago I read the platform standards for the Noarlunga line and the requirements were less than 150 metres.
In days of old the posts advising drivers where to stop for 1,2,3, 4 ,six car sets were all located well in from the end of platforms. There was allowance made in days gone by to avoid overshoots.
On the Gawler line Port Pirie and Terowie trains were often longer than the 120 metre limit and Gawler Race trains with nine redhens would have been closer to 180 metres so we are regressing again !!!!
If a modern six car set is too long for the platforms that only increases the need for 4 or five car consists to be assembled.
That is where we need to go back to running public transport for the public, instead of running it to suit the railways.
The next build of sparks (45 cars) could be built as five four car sets and five five car sets.
I am sure that some simple interpretation of the onboard validations would find ten suitable candidates for strengthened consists.
Cascading the extra dmu's to strengthen existing 2 car sets would increase the capacity of the system considerably at minimal extra cost. The fifteen displaced diesel sets would provide at least 30 extra cars. Enough to increase up to 15 2 car sets to four car sets.
This would be the way to offer increased capacity
This would be better use of taxpayer funds than running lots of extra smaller trains.
The larger permanent sets would require less drivers cabs than the planned order which I am sure would result in lower costs to build.
( Maybe we could even afford an extra car or two to increase the fleet !!!! shock horror more seats for paying passengers!!! )
Not long ago the Jumbos were prematurely removed from the system.
Apparently safety issues with the elevated cabs and lack of spare parts.
1 The cabs could have been built / redesigned at a lower level , and even reinforced for safety.
2 A simple google search can source most of the transmission parts etc required.
3 if the $ 215,000 per platform shelter rebuild across the system could have funded these projects we would not have been left with platform shelters that do not shelter passengers.
Talking of platform lengths what about the new St. Clair station?
Would it be safe to assume that it only can handle a four car set ? or possibly less. ?
The old down platform could handle seven pass cars and an F comfortably.
The old up platform if used today would have increased delays so it was a good idea to build a new one in its new location,
But if a practical person had designed the layout the old platform could have been retained. ( Saved a large construction cost) The subway could have been reopened. ( minimal construction cost)
This would have offered a longer platform for down trains and the construction of a longer up platform to facilitate expansion of the system in the future.
And trains stopping after the crossing would have resulted in less delays for road traffic ( and the ten cyclists per day) on Cheltenham Parade.
Once again do we want to offer more capacity for the thousands of people wanting to use the system on what was a racecourse or the extra people living in Cheltenham because of infill.
And to consider the public.
Would renewal of the old tramway ( Finsbury, Woodville North, Gillman line Through to Port Dock ) have been a good way to service the new dock 1 and dock 2 developments as well as increasing the catchment through St, Clair.
It could also have served a lot of industrial workers around the port.
Just like a connection over the Port bridge and down to the sub corp etc.
Are we really interested in running public transport for the public? or just keeping the closed boys club going. So many of these thoughts just seem like plain old common sense.