Renewed focus on track quality and infrastructure is it about time Hobart to Launceston passenger services were reinstated ?

A DMU could do it.

The only prospect for a Hobart - Launceston - Burnie rail passenger service is for a return of tourist & heritage trains, as was operated from 1984 to 2005. The South line is far too indirect for any feasible commercial transport service, even with modern tilting railcars.

The mandatory prerequisite for reviving commercial service would be the need to completely re-route the South Line between Brighton & Antill Ponds via the Jordan River Valley, achieving a far more direct route than the current aimless meanders via Campania, Colebrook, Rhyndaston , Parattah and York Plains.

12CSVT - Re Mac Pt, I agree that the transit corridor allowed appears to be very light on for rail access needs. I suspect they are anticipating a busway option, or if light rail then no allowance for H&T.

Re ‘Option 2’ I agree that it has to be properly done from the start - I’m hopeful that various rail options are considered in the study but I’m concerned that only a ‘gold plated’ system will be compared with a busway and be shown not to be the ‘cost competitive’ system that is being touted in the general City Deal documentation.

See Sect 5, from page 19
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/cities/city-deals/hobart/files/hobart-implementation-plan.pdf

Australia's smallest state capital being plagued with big city traffic problems

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-04/public-transport-and-congestion-hobart-cars/11728076

I like the line, "build it and they will come, or maybe they won't"

Ferries deemed unlikely to be reliable enough and too high cost to start up, but I think this is a narrow view and rail is not a solution for the eastern shore due to its high cost.

The whole LR approach to the former railway is gold plating a simple lower solution and making the worst of both worlds, ie LR slow speeds and higher costs but using the out of the way HR corridor.

Simple solution is look at what works elsewhere, such as Westcoast Rail in Vancouver and Auckland. The feds will throw in money if they think it viable but will not fund 90% of the solution as the Qlder's have found out with CRR. Rail is also not going to be a simple solution for most of Hobart, just one corridor and at $80M/km LR beyond the existing corridor and perhaps an extension into the CBD is never going to be embraced by the limited budget of the Tas govt.

- Reopen line south of Austins Ferry, no need to incur costs of crossing the river for little return.

- Trains operate in peak, in peak direction only, north of Claremont, bus connection out of peak.

- Dual track up to TTMS and a passing loop between TTMS and Claremont for off-peak services. The corridor is wide enough to accommodate a 2nd track most of the way or where it cannot the bike track can be easily relocated.

- Extend line into under the city, ie Auckland Britomart style, tunnel yes, expensive yes, but required to make the service viable. The entrance to the tunnel would be before the Regatta area.

- Trains, start out with DMU only, option to convert to spark or hybrid later for example spark to Claremont only likely viable.

- Station next to ferry terminal at water front and reintroduce ferries to eastern shore. In 1974, they didn't have the traffic of today, people will use PT if it works for them in preference of traffic. Again ferries for some routes in peak only, buses during day across the bridge.

Australia's smallest state capital being plagued with big city traffic problems

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-04/public-transport-and-congestion-hobart-cars/11728076

I like the line, "build it and they will come, or maybe they won't"

Ferries deemed unlikely to be reliable enough and too high cost to start up, but I think this is a narrow view and rail is not a solution for the eastern shore due to its high cost.

The whole LR approach to the former railway is gold plating a simple lower solution and making the worst of both worlds, ie LR slow speeds and higher costs but using the out of the way HR corridor.

Simple solution is look at what works elsewhere, such as Westcoast Rail in Vancouver and Auckland. The feds will throw in money if they think it viable but will not fund 90% of the solution as the Qlder's have found out with CRR. Rail is also not going to be a simple solution for most of Hobart, just one corridor and at $80M/km LR beyond the existing corridor and perhaps an extension into the CBD is never going to be embraced by the limited budget of the Tas govt.

- Reopen line south of Austins Ferry, no need to incur costs of crossing the river for little return.

- Trains operate in peak, in peak direction only, north of Claremont, bus connection out of peak.

- Dual track up to TTMS and a passing loop between TTMS and Claremont for off-peak services. The corridor is wide enough to accommodate a 2nd track most of the way or where it cannot the bike track can be easily relocated.

- Extend line into under the city, ie Auckland Britomart style, tunnel yes, expensive yes, but required to make the service viable. The entrance to the tunnel would be before the Regatta area.

- Trains, start out with DMU only, option to convert to spark or hybrid later for example spark to Claremont only likely viable.

- Station next to ferry terminal at water front and reintroduce ferries to eastern shore. In 1974, they didn't have the traffic of today, people will use PT if it works for them in preference of traffic. Again ferries for some routes in peak only, buses during day across the bridge.

Ferries will fail unless the powers that be can shake off the "tourist sightseeing putt-putt" style ferry mind-set. If ferries are ever to be a viable means to travel they must be high speed Jet-cat ferries serving the distant water-side communities like Kingston / Blackmans Bay / Margate on the western shore and Tranmere / South Arm, etc. on the eastern shore. A "putt-putt" serving Bellerive is a total waste of time. The ferries must provide a faster commute than cars, and distance is needed to allow that.

We have a chronic situation with some influential Senior Executive Service bureaucrats having a complete disdain for any non-road based transport alternative. Unfortunately they are in the key roles through which Govt requests to undertake feasibility and business case studies into rail or ferries must pass. As a result they use (abuse) their positions to influence and engineer outcomes to suit their own pre-conceived agendas, regardless of the Govt's promises to electors or public wishes. Hence we end up with ludicrous "gold plated" light rail proposals with pointless propositions that the track needs to re-gauged, perfectly serviceable rail and sleepers (relatively recently replaced) need to be junked and all sorts of other crazy provisions are needed, when a simple trip to Ottawa, ON, demonstrates an existing freight track can be simply adapted with modern light (medium) rail technology like Bombardier 'Talents' or Althom's Coradia LINT train sets.

It is self defeating to limit or restrict services north of Claremont / Austins Ferry. The landscape between Claremont and Brighton is a universe away from the sparsely populated farms and market gardens that limited patronage pre 1974. Brighton is one of (if not the) fastest growing residential area in Tasmania. Infill housing is rapidly filling all vacant land between Austins Ferry and Granton - the latest major medium / high density subdivision being the new Whitestone Point development which will straddle the line in place of the now demolished Risby's (later Gunns) and K&D sawmills. The existing crossing via the old Bridgewater bridge is perfectly serviceable. The main problem with the existing bridge is the crushing punishment being meted out to the bridge by endless convoys of devastatingly heavy 'B' Double zinc trucks amongst other grossly overweight (for the bridge) heavy road transport. A replacement bridge (or more sensibly a rebuilt dual carriageway East Derwent Highway to the Bowen Bridge) will relieve the destructive pounding the old Bridgewater Bridge currently endures day and night. Without that and with a 10 tonne road weight limit, the old bridge will last another 80 years.

Continuous dual track is no longer possible between Hobart and Glenorchy. The InterCity bike path will not under any circumstances be relocated (and it cant between Newtown and Moonah, due to the embankment), but regular automatically signalled loops can be accommodated all the way through to Granton.

A tunnel is completely unnecessary 'gold plating' as discussed above. The HNSR proposal is for the line to exit Macquarie Point via the old Hobart Wharf trackage and either stay on the old wharf line over the bridges at Victoria and Constitution Docks or deviate around them via Hunter St and Davey St to Mawson Place, which puts the terminal at the foot of Elizabeth St. diagonally opposite Franklin Square. The bottom end of Elizabeth St, opposite Franklin Square, is particularly wide (with median parking long a feature) so it would be not unreasonable to continue the line up Elizabeth St (the gradient shouldn't bother modern LRVs) to terminate in the current bus mall at the foot of Elizabeth Mall. Getting any closer to the dead centre of the CBD is almost impossible!

Yes, the progression in rolling stock would sensibly be either diesel of better hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell LRV's (like the Talents or LINTs mentioned above), that can evolve into full electric service in the future.

As noted, the HNSR's proposed terminal at Mawson Place is adjacent to where ferries terminate in Sullivans Cove. Also, as noted above, the ferries would only work if they can ply routes to where they can convincingly out-pace car travel. Another demonstration of the executive bureaucracies antipathy to anything not road-based, the current trial to Bellerive, has been deliberately designed to link the cheapest, most rudimentary and effectively pointless destinations imaginable, to guarantee the trial fails.

Australia's smallest state capital being plagued with big city traffic problems

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-04/public-transport-and-congestion-hobart-cars/11728076

I like the line, "build it and they will come, or maybe they won't"

Ferries deemed unlikely to be reliable enough and too high cost to start up, but I think this is a narrow view and rail is not a solution for the eastern shore due to its high cost.

The whole LR approach to the former railway is gold plating a simple lower solution and making the worst of both worlds, ie LR slow speeds and higher costs but using the out of the way HR corridor.

Simple solution is look at what works elsewhere, such as Westcoast Rail in Vancouver and Auckland. The feds will throw in money if they think it viable but will not fund 90% of the solution as the Qlder's have found out with CRR. Rail is also not going to be a simple solution for most of Hobart, just one corridor and at $80M/km LR beyond the existing corridor and perhaps an extension into the CBD is never going to be embraced by the limited budget of the Tas govt.

- Reopen line south of Austins Ferry, no need to incur costs of crossing the river for little return.

- Trains operate in peak, in peak direction only, north of Claremont, bus connection out of peak.

- Dual track up to TTMS and a passing loop between TTMS and Claremont for off-peak services. The corridor is wide enough to accommodate a 2nd track most of the way or where it cannot the bike track can be easily relocated.

- Extend line into under the city, ie Auckland Britomart style, tunnel yes, expensive yes, but required to make the service viable. The entrance to the tunnel would be before the Regatta area.

- Trains, start out with DMU only, option to convert to spark or hybrid later for example spark to Claremont only likely viable.

- Station next to ferry terminal at water front and reintroduce ferries to eastern shore. In 1974, they didn't have the traffic of today, people will use PT if it works for them in preference of traffic. Again ferries for some routes in peak only, buses during day across the bridge.

Ferries will fail unless the powers that be can shake off the "tourist sightseeing putt-putt" style ferry mind-set. If ferries are ever to be a viable means to travel they must be high speed Jet-cat ferries serving the distant water-side communities like Kingston / Blackmans Bay / Margate on the western shore and Tranmere / South Arm, etc. on the eastern shore. A "putt-putt" serving Bellerive is a total waste of time. The ferries must provide a faster commute than cars, and distance is needed to allow that.

We have a chronic situation with some influential Senior Executive Service bureaucrats having a complete disdain for any non-road based transport alternative. Unfortunately they are in the key roles through which Govt requests to undertake feasibility and business case studies into rail or ferries must pass. As a result they use (abuse) their positions to influence and engineer outcomes to suit their own pre-conceived agendas, regardless of the Govt's promises to electors or public wishes. Hence we end up with ludicrous "gold plated" light rail proposals with pointless propositions that the track needs to re-gauged, perfectly serviceable rail and sleepers (relatively recently replaced) need to be junked and all sorts of other crazy provisions are needed, when a simple trip to Ottawa, ON, demonstrates an existing freight track can be simply adapted with modern light (medium) rail technology like Bombardier 'Talents' or Althom's Coradia LINT train sets.

It is self defeating to limit or restrict services north of Claremont / Austins Ferry. The landscape between Claremont and Brighton is a universe away from the sparsely populated farms and market gardens that limited patronage pre 1974. Brighton is one of (if not the) fastest growing residential area in Tasmania. Infill housing is rapidly filling all vacant land between Austins Ferry and Granton - the latest major medium / high density subdivision being the new Whitestone Point development which will straddle the line in place of the now demolished Risby's (later Gunns) and K&D sawmills. The existing crossing via the old Bridgewater bridge is perfectly serviceable. The main problem with the existing bridge is the crushing punishment being meted out to the bridge by endless convoys of devastatingly heavy 'B' Double zinc trucks amongst other grossly overweight (for the bridge) heavy road transport. A replacement bridge (or more sensibly a rebuilt dual carriageway East Derwent Highway to the Bowen Bridge) will relieve the destructive pounding the old Bridgewater Bridge currently endures day and night. Without that and with a 10 tonne road weight limit, the old bridge will last another 80 years.

Continuous dual track is no longer possible between Hobart and Glenorchy. The InterCity bike path will not under any circumstances be relocated (and it cant between Newtown and Moonah, due to the embankment), but regular automatically signalled loops can be accommodated all the way through to Granton.

A tunnel is completely unnecessary 'gold plating' as discussed above. The HNSR proposal is for the line to exit Macquarie Point via the old Hobart Wharf trackage and either stay on the old wharf line over the bridges at Victoria and Constitution Docks or deviate around them via Hunter St and Davey St to Mawson Place, which puts the terminal at the foot of Elizabeth St. diagonally opposite Franklin Square. The bottom end of Elizabeth St, opposite Franklin Square, is particularly wide (with median parking long a feature) so it would be not unreasonable to continue the line up Elizabeth St (the gradient shouldn't bother modern LRVs) to terminate in the current bus mall at the foot of Elizabeth Mall. Getting any closer to the dead centre of the CBD is almost impossible!

Yes, the progression in rolling stock would sensibly be either diesel of better hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell LRV's (like the Talents or LINTs mentioned above), that can evolve into full electric service in the future.

As noted, the HNSR's proposed terminal at Mawson Place is adjacent to where ferries terminate in Sullivans Cove. Also, as noted above, the ferries would only work if they can ply routes to where they can convincingly out-pace car travel. Another demonstration of the executive bureaucracies antipathy to anything not road-based, the current trial to Bellerive, has been deliberately designed to link the cheapest, most rudimentary and effectively pointless destinations imaginable, to guarantee the trial fails.

I often wondered why the Sydney Dulwich Hill LR needed relaying with 60KG/M rail and concrete sleepers and completely new OHW when I cannot see any reason why 750 DC wouldn't work with the existing wiring. Another case of a project being gold plated.

Ferries will fail unless the powers that be can shake off the "tourist sightseeing putt-putt" style ferry mind-set. If ferries are ever to be a viable means to travel they must be high speed Jet-cat ferries serving the distant water-side communities like Kingston / Blackmans Bay / Margate on the western shore and Tranmere / South Arm, etc. on the eastern shore. A "putt-putt" serving Bellerive is a total waste of time. The ferries must provide a faster commute than cars, and distance is needed to allow that.

We have a chronic situation with some influential Senior Executive Service bureaucrats having a complete disdain for any non-road based transport alternative. Unfortunately they are in the key roles through which Govt requests to undertake feasibility and business case studies into rail or ferries must pass. As a result they use (abuse) their positions to influence and engineer outcomes to suit their own pre-conceived agendas, regardless of the Govt's promises to electors or public wishes. Hence we end up with ludicrous "gold plated" light rail proposals with pointless propositions that the track needs to re-gauged, perfectly serviceable rail and sleepers (relatively recently replaced) need to be junked and all sorts of other crazy provisions are needed, when a simple trip to Ottawa, ON, demonstrates an existing freight track can be simply adapted with modern light (medium) rail technology like Bombardier 'Talents' or Althom's Coradia LINT train sets.

It is self defeating to limit or restrict services north of Claremont / Austins Ferry. The landscape between Claremont and Brighton is a universe away from the sparsely populated farms and market gardens that limited patronage pre 1974. Brighton is one of (if not the) fastest growing residential area in Tasmania. Infill housing is rapidly filling all vacant land between Austins Ferry and Granton - the latest major medium / high density subdivision being the new Whitestone Point development which will straddle the line in place of the now demolished Risby's (later Gunns) and K&D sawmills. The existing crossing via the old Bridgewater bridge is perfectly serviceable. The main problem with the existing bridge is the crushing punishment being meted out to the bridge by endless convoys of devastatingly heavy 'B' Double zinc trucks amongst other grossly overweight (for the bridge) heavy road transport. A replacement bridge (or more sensibly a rebuilt dual carriageway East Derwent Highway to the Bowen Bridge) will relieve the destructive pounding the old Bridgewater Bridge currently endures day and night. Without that and with a 10 tonne road weight limit, the old bridge will last another 80 years.

Continuous dual track is no longer possible between Hobart and Glenorchy. The InterCity bike path will not under any circumstances be relocated (and it cant between Newtown and Moonah, due to the embankment), but regular automatically signalled loops can be accommodated all the way through to Granton.

A tunnel is completely unnecessary 'gold plating' as discussed above. The HNSR proposal is for the line to exit Macquarie Point via the old Hobart Wharf trackage and either stay on the old wharf line over the bridges at Victoria and Constitution Docks or deviate around them via Hunter St and Davey St to Mawson Place, which puts the terminal at the foot of Elizabeth St. diagonally opposite Franklin Square. The bottom end of Elizabeth St, opposite Franklin Square, is particularly wide (with median parking long a feature) so it would be not unreasonable to continue the line up Elizabeth St (the gradient shouldn't bother modern LRVs) to terminate in the current bus mall at the foot of Elizabeth Mall. Getting any closer to the dead centre of the CBD is almost impossible!

Yes, the progression in rolling stock would sensibly be either diesel of better hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell LRV's (like the Talents or LINTs mentioned above), that can evolve into full electric service in the future.

As noted, the HNSR's proposed terminal at Mawson Place is adjacent to where ferries terminate in Sullivans Cove. Also, as noted above, the ferries would only work if they can ply routes to where they can convincingly out-pace car travel. Another demonstration of the executive bureaucracies antipathy to anything not road-based, the current trial to Bellerive, has been deliberately designed to link the cheapest, most rudimentary and effectively pointless destinations imaginable, to guarantee the trial fails.

I often wondered why the Sydney Dulwich Hill LR needed relaying with 60KG/M rail and concrete sleepers and completely new OHW when I cannot see any reason why 750 DC wouldn't work with the existing wiring. Another case of a project being gold plated.

Thanks for feedback

A few comments,
- The ferry's need to be modern, yes.

- Up to Briton ok, but incurring the cost of maintaining the bridge, mmm.

- Agree not all the corridor can be returned to dual track, but there needs to be some work done to return to mostly duplication and relocating the bike track in some locations will need to happen. If not then forget anything rail.

- Having tram/trains crawling along the old wharf ROW at the expected 5-10km/h will see people just alight at the old station and walk. Yes we don't need the costly tunnel for say Phase 1, but it worked in Auckland, very well! Vancouver has a cross platform connection onto the Skytrain which enters the city next two stations via a tunnel.

- If using tram style vehicles yes you can use Davey St -> Elizabeth St -> Macquarie St ( or similar) loop as a alt to a tunnel which would be for trains.

- The extension of SLR L1 was interesting and reflected budgets at the time.
- Phase 1 - appeared to be over the top, Gold Plate, heavy rail, concrete sleepers etc
- Phase 2 - low cost private money, used the OH and track pretty much as is
- Final Phase, Awash with Govt money

LR typically is anything but Light and basically only refers to the vehicle running on it, but its done to reduce long term MTCE costs as line is in very high frequency use.

The Tasmanian Government's AFL Taskforce report released recently recommends building a new 30,000 seat stadium at Macquaire Point.

Below is a quote directly from the report that makes specific reference to the light rail for spectators to travel to and from games.

Spectators will make better use of public transport hubs, including the proposed light rail, in venturing into the CBD for pre or post-game meals or bars and other activities.

The report goes on to state that Hobart could be ready for a new team in 2025.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2020-tasmania-could-have-own-afl-team-by-2025-according-to-leaked-state-report/news-story/fa86347d8e4592676595c50616bdd76a

Could the AFL team provide the impetus required to get the line up and running?

Ross

Would there be any tolerance for a tram route In the Hobart CBD ?

Say establishing a circle loop using Hobart's one way Streets, running along Morrison, Argyle Street, Liverpool Street and Murray Street.
Connection to Macquarie Point via the side of Davey Street and Hunter Street (going via Franklin Wharf would be unique, but probably costly with alterations of the two bascule bridges)

Would there be any tolerance for a tram route In the Hobart CBD ?

Say establishing a circle loop using Hobart's one way Streets, running along Morrison, Argyle Street, Liverpool Street and Murray Street.
Connection to Macquarie Point via the side of Davey Street and Hunter Street (going via Franklin Wharf would be unique, but probably costly with alterations of the two bascule bridges)

The one way streets certainly helps in building a loop and retaining physical separation between LR and road vehicles.

Lets save alot of pain for the commuters of the future LR and avoid the wharf route.

the simplest way is

Hobart Rivulet -> - Davey -> Argyle -> Liverpool -> Murray -> Macquarie -> Hobart Rivulet

But i also think entering the city via Liverpool street to Murray and as above may also work and be better.

Opponents of reviving the Hobart Rail Corridor for public transit as a means of lessening congestion on the Brooker Highway northern arterial, often flag an alternative of streamlining road access through Hobart by the means of tunnels or specifically, a western road bypass of Hobart, working under the assumption that a major proportion of traffic transiting through the Hobart CBD is through traffic (i.e. Kingston - Glenorchy & northwards, or Eastern Shore - Kingston & southwards).

Well the State Govt recently commissioned a detailed feasibility study into determining, once and for all, the viability of a western road bypass of Hobart.

The result is in and it is pretty bad news for the road spruikers.

Basically, the study has completely dismissed the 'western bypass' road idea, as not having, even remotely, any sort of potential for being viable.

Key points include:

• Cost: an eye watering $3.3 Billion!
• Travel time savings: a measly 4 minutes!
• Cost per vehicle transit: $31 per one way trip;
• Recoverable through tolls: 2% of the annual cost;
• Maximum of 27% potential usage of the bypass, as the majority of CBD traffic actually originates / terminates in the CBD. Earlier studies have suggested there is no more than 14% consistent cross city transit.
• The bypass would require the Hobart population to increase to an excess of 2 million persons to become viable.

So, when comparing the HNSR rail proposal ($80 - 100 million to establish) to the western bypass ($3.3 Billion) as the most economic means to suppress current and increasing peak congestion, into and out of Hobart, the rail proposal slaughters the road counter proposal.

Link to the study https://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/262522/Hobart_Western_Bypass_Feasiblity_Study_-_Summary_Report.pdf

Opponents of reviving the Hobart Rail Corridor for public transit as a means of lessening congestion on the Brooker Highway northern arterial, often flag an alternative of streamlining road access through Hobart by the means of tunnels or specifically, a western road bypass of Hobart, working under the assumption that a major proportion of traffic transiting through the Hobart CBD is through traffic (i.e. Kingston - Glenorchy & northwards, or Eastern Shore - Kingston & southwards).

Well the State Govt recently commissioned a detailed feasibility study into determining, once and for all, the viability of a western road bypass of Hobart.

The result is in and it is pretty bad news for the road spruikers.

Basically, the study has completely dismissed the 'western bypass' road idea, as not having, even remotely, any sort of potential for being viable.

Key points include:

• Cost: an eye watering $3.3 Billion!
• Travel time savings: a measly 4 minutes!
• Cost per vehicle transit: $31 per one way trip;
• Recoverable through tolls: 2% of the annual cost;
• Maximum of 27% potential usage of the bypass, as the majority of CBD traffic actually originates / terminates in the CBD. Earlier studies have suggested there is no more than 14% consistent cross city transit.
• The bypass would require the Hobart population to increase to an excess of 2 million persons to become viable.

So, when comparing the HNSR rail proposal ($80 - 100 million to establish) to the western bypass ($3.3 Billion) as the most economic means to suppress current and increasing peak congestion, into and out of Hobart, the rail proposal slaughters the road counter proposal.

Link to the study https://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/262522/Hobart_Western_Bypass_Feasiblity_Study_-_Summary_Report.pdf

I can say that having lived in Tasmania, the locals intolerance to being stopped at traffic lights and needing a by-pass is amazing.

Yes, the LR project which I very much doubt will have a significant impact on Hobart traffic is cheap in comparison and should go ahead on a 50:50 funding basis.