My understanding is that Airport Road was built to provide road and possibly tram access to the airport.  Trams would have used the median strip.  The decision, in 1953, to do away with the trams put paid to trams going to the airport.

Yeah it's lovely and wide isn't it, you'd have to imagine that it was designed with that in mind.

I believe that the tram line down Sir Donald Bradman/Burbridge Road got as far as Marion Road before turning South - that could have been another option had Playford not decided to rip up the whole network.

Airport opened in 1955, trams closed in 1958, you'd have to think it wasn't at least in their mind set or at least planning for future growth and road widening.

Edit: Was Airport road actually built then?

Non-bus transport makes a very minor appearance in the airport master plan, page 18, 10.10.1 saying they have "Adelaide Airport has made provision for increased public transport, by reserving land for a potential high capacity public transport corridor along Sir Richard Williams Avenue."

I read this as to be a tram "of sorts" station and likely ROW provision.

https://www.adelaideairport.com.au/corporate/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/adelaide-airport-preliminary-draft-master-plan-2019-chapter-10.pdf

I have a map of Adelaide from the late 1920's and I also have one from 1960 just after the tram network was ripped up - Airport Road (and the airport) didn't exist in the twenties but both did exist by 1960.

There was planning for right-of-way provision and future extensions of the the Adelaide tram network right up until the decision was made to pull the pin in 1953 - Prospect Road had power provision for trams made all the way up to Marmion Avenue in the north of Kilburn/Blair Athol in anticipation of an extension from (then) Irish Harp Road terminus (now Regency Road) and there was also land bought in anticipation of a new line that was to cut through from Payneham Road to the new growth areas around Tranmere.

The decision, in 1953, to do away with the trams put paid to trams going to the airport.

I think times have changed.

a third tier with trains operating all to Brighton and Seaford running limited express to Brighton then all south and thus limit Seaford trains to around 16 stopping stations, Brighton trains being similar. You can do this with trains leaving Adelaide 10min apart  Basically Seaford followed 2-3min later by Brighton then 10min later Seaford.

Brighton is only a handful of stations further than where Flinders trains turn off and barely worth the effort.

If you assume that Flinders continues to have two trains per hour standard frequency and Seaford four trains per hour, I would keep the Seaford trains paired with the Flinders trains as stopping all stations from Woodlands Park onwards.

For the two Seaford trains per hour not paired with a Flinders train, I would add a stopping service to Hallett Cove Beach (using the Lonsdale sidings to turn back) which the Seaford train would overtake at Brighton. These Seaford trains would stop at Showground, Woodlands, Oaklands, Hallett Cove and all stations to Seaford.

Aldinga is a long way south and likely the furthest south the line will reach this century, too many priorities to the north.

The north has just had massive spending with the Northern Connector and Gawler electrification, and to get any priority for anything big in the next 20 years they'll need to learn to start voting blue every now and then.

An extension to Sellicks with an intermediate 'Silver Sands' station for the southern half of Aldinga Beach (which really needs to be split off with a new suburb name) would be very simple, best to reserve the required land now before it gets developed. In the indefinite period before a railway is built, put a shared path there which would at least provide better non-car access options for the Aldinga terminus from the south and could be rebuilt alongside the railway at a later date (like the section of shared path through Seaford was).

Airport opened in 1955, trams closed in 1958, you'd have to think it wasn't at least in their mind set or at least planning for future growth and road widening.

Edit: Was Airport road actually built then?

A search for old street directory images led me to the 1948 Fuller's where you can see (a) why people preferred the Gregory's and (b) that Airport Road is already there on map 12, though it's by no means clear how if the road had been built or if it's just a cleared road reserve.

The clue as to why Airport Road was carved through Brooklyn Park is pretty apparent by looking at map 12 and 13 - Henley Beach Road was the main road in the area and what is now Sir Donald Bradman Drive simply didn't exist as a continuous road straight through from the city.

The airport site was selected in 1945, and trams might have been considered then if it was known how big air travel would get in the future. But with remediating the site and constructing the airport taking seven years, Crooked Tom Playford had already been in bed with General Motors for years by the time the opening to passengers approached in 1955.

a third tier with trains operating all to Brighton and Seaford running limited express to Brighton then all south and thus limit Seaford trains to around 16 stopping stations, Brighton trains being similar. You can do this with trains leaving Adelaide 10min apart  Basically Seaford followed 2-3min later by Brighton then 10min later Seaford.

Brighton is only a handful of stations further than where Flinders trains turn off and barely worth the effort.

If you assume that Flinders continues to have two trains per hour standard frequency and Seaford four trains per hour, I would keep the Seaford trains paired with the Flinders trains as stopping all stations from Woodlands Park onwards.

For the two Seaford trains per hour not paired with a Flinders train, I would add a stopping service to Hallett Cove Beach (using the Lonsdale sidings to turn back) which the Seaford train would overtake at Brighton. These Seaford trains would stop at Showground, Woodlands, Oaklands, Hallett Cove and all stations to Seaford.

Aldinga is a long way south and likely the furthest south the line will reach this century, too many priorities to the north.

The north has just had massive spending with the Northern Connector and Gawler electrification, and to get any priority for anything big in the next 20 years they'll need to learn to start voting blue every now and then.

An extension to Sellicks with an intermediate 'Silver Sands' station for the southern half of Aldinga Beach (which really needs to be split off with a new suburb name) would be very simple, best to reserve the required land now before it gets developed. In the indefinite period before a railway is built, put a shared path there which would at least provide better non-car access options for the Aldinga terminus from the south and could be rebuilt alongside the railway at a later date (like the section of shared path through Seaford was).

Airport opened in 1955, trams closed in 1958, you'd have to think it wasn't at least in their mind set or at least planning for future growth and road widening.

Edit: Was Airport road actually built then?

A search for old street directory images led me to the 1948 Fuller's where you can see (a) why people preferred the Gregory's and (b) that Airport Road is already there on map 12, though it's by no means clear how if the road had been built or if it's just a cleared road reserve.

The clue as to why Airport Road was carved through Brooklyn Park is pretty apparent by looking at map 12 and 13 - Henley Beach Road was the main road in the area and what is now Sir Donald Bradman Drive simply didn't exist as a continuous road straight through from the city.

The airport site was selected in 1945, and trams might have been considered then if it was known how big air travel would get in the future. But with remediating the site and constructing the airport taking seven years, Crooked Tom Playford had already been in bed with General Motors for years by the time the opening to passengers approached in 1955.

I suppose the Airport road went to Beach road not just for road but tram connection.

When I referred to "North" I mean north of Seaford, not city. But yes reserve the ROW even if not planned for 30 years.

Passing at a single station loop impacts on reliability and timetable.

Assume
- Tonsley assume 20min
- Brighton assume 20 min
- Both all stoppers running 10min apart
- Seaford limited express on 20min timetable fits in between.

30min timetable for inner suburban train services is antiquated, may as well run a bus.

I suppose the Airport road went to Beach road not just for road but tram connection.

They would have had to be horse-drawn trams if that happened, because you couldn't run an electrified tram line across an airport.

I reckon Airport Road being drawn that way is just Fuller's way of showing that it would go into the airport site, and would have been better executed if he had left out the closed sections of West Beach Road and Morphett Road crossing the airport.

It would be interesting to see what the Gregory's of the era showed.

I suppose the Airport road went to Beach road not just for road but tram connection.

They would have had to be horse-drawn trams if that happened, because you couldn't run an electrified tram line across an airport.

I reckon Airport Road being drawn that way is just Fuller's way of showing that it would go into the airport site, and would have been better executed if he had left out the closed sections of West Beach Road and Morphett Road crossing the airport.

It would be interesting to see what the Gregory's of the era showed.

I have a Gregorys Street Directory from 1957 which shows all of the tram routes. Map 9 shows Burbridge Road running along the northern boundary of the airport, which is shown as AIRPORT SITE. The road from Henley Beach Road to Sir Donald Bradman Drive is shown dotted so evidently it was planned, but not built at that stage.

Burbridge Road is shown as far as May Terrace and ends where Kooyonga golf course ajoins the airport site.

Continuing to Map 24 there are no roads marked or dotted from May Terrace, but it appears that a small section of the NW corner of the airport site was used to extend Burbridge Road to meet up with Tapleys Hill Road.

Press Road and West Beach Road are shown heading west off Marion Road, but once they enter the airport site they are shown dotted.

The only tram lines in the area was the tram line along Henley Beach Road, and the Marion Road line heading south on Marion Road from what is now Sir Donald Bradman drive to the West Beach Road corner.

Les

Why could you not run a tramline into the airport along the median strip of the road, other high voltage would be present in any airport and the overhead for the tram is not exactly very high either. So unless planes were landing and taking off on Airport Road then it could be done really.  Electric trains go into airports in places and they operate on far higher voltages etc.  Trams here in Adelaide are only 600 to 750 volt so it is not like the lights were going to dim or the radar fade out at the airport or something.  Also the MTT here generated their own power it did not come from the main electricity supply that the masses used.  But now a dedicated service is needed to Adelaide airport not a bus but something else either tram or railway possibly underground as well to keep it out of sight and out of the way.

Nothing wrong with having a tram to the airport.

Shane was talking about running it all the way across the airport to West Beach, based purely on a non-geographical map. Not only do you have the problem of the route running across the airport, but also that West Beach was a sleepy backwater with a swamp 70 years ago and the only thing that has changed is there's less swamp.

Considering the close proximity to the city, there's absolutely no case for an underground railway. And with the success of of the O-Bahn in Adelaide, the case for a tram isn't exactly strong either.

Nothing wrong with having a tram to the airport.

Shane was talking about running it all the way across the airport to West Beach, based purely on a non-geographical map. Not only do you have the problem of the route running across the airport, but also that West Beach was a sleepy backwater with a swamp 70 years ago and the only thing that has changed is there's less swamp.

Considering the close proximity to the city, there's absolutely no case for an underground railway. And with the success of of the O-Bahn in Adelaide, the case for a tram isn't exactly strong either.

No, I said "Beach Road", meaning Henley Beach Road.

I didn't understand where you were coming at with the horse thing, but just let it lie figured I missed something and clearly I did.

Railway isn't justified, you don't have the numbers and yes distance is too short.

O-bahn was a bus track costing equal per km to heavy rail with more expensive buses. The technology was too little too late which is why it wasn't used much elsewhere. Brisbane did the same and just built a 2 lane road for buses only.

LR's benefit over bus is that rail always gets more ridership than buses when compared on a similar route and travel time. If we were too apply this argument then why build any tram or indeed Melbourne airport lie. The fact that we are looking at 50 year old paper maps and can see where the major PT routes were at a glance is case in point. Now find the bus routes? Yes today Google Maps helps somewhat but it isn't that much better.

If a LR was to be built I would see it only going to the airport for now then running East - West across the city, not connecting with the existing tram lines on Nth Terrace as I think this is getting busy enough on its own.

So Hindmarsh Square straight down Henley Beach road to the airport, 7.2km cost about $800m.

Future extension to the Henley Beach and/or down the old railway alignment to Plymton options for another budget.

My understanding is that Airport Road was built to provide road and possibly tram access to the airport.  Trams would have used the median strip.  The decision, in 1953, to do away with the trams put paid to trams going to the airport.

Yeah it's lovely and wide isn't it, you'd have to imagine that it was designed with that in mind.

I believe that the tram line down Sir Donald Bradman/Burbridge Road got as far as Marion Road before turning South - that could have been another option had Playford not decided to rip up the whole network.

Having caught the tram from Tallinn (Estonia) City Centre to the airport, I see alot of parallels between the two. Tallinn's tram service is a basic X network and was very dated. EU has thrown some money at them to save it and upgrade parts of it. Someone has also given them some money to fund an extension off one of the longer branches about 1-2km or so to the airport and get modern rolling stock. So after spending 30min going along what is clearly a +50 years old designed route on the road, you then leave the road to a new everything dedicated route to the airport and you walk about 5m undercover from tram to terminal door.  

Like Tallinn I don't see Adelaide Airport traffic supporting heavy rail or other airport only focused services, just an extension of an existing commuter service and has potential for Fed funding like Melbourne and Perth.

I used the trams in Tallin back in 02 but not to the airport. The rolling stock was all old Soviet era dated back then but I do enjoy those old eastern European trams that existed in other eastern european cities at the time. A tram/LRT line to the airport is a good solution for a city of under 500k. I've used the excellent Porto LRT short spur line off line B to the airport which is very good and has reasonable timings but again a LRT network for a city of 700k. Seville also plans to extend their Metro Line 2 (LRT) to the Airport eventually. There are many good examples (the above mentioned Canberra plan) with LRT networks but usually in cities with a 500k to 800k pop.

The distinction with Adelaide is that the pop is much higher - will hit close to 2m by 2050 - and the city covers a much larger land area which Imho makes an interconnected heavy rail connection more durable for the long term. If a sub 15min trip with easy connections then people will use it as the pop increases and other transport options become more congested.

I know that it isn't possible in the current planning cycle but ideally think towards 2100 when the pop will be more like 2.5m+ with a greater density and build the infrastructure to support that. The line could even potentially connect with the long term plan for a city underground line?

However, failing that a LRT line will definitely be better than nothing.....

I used the trams in Tallin back in 02 but not to the airport. The rolling stock was all old Soviet era dated back then but I do enjoy those old eastern European trams that existed in other eastern european cities at the time. A tram/LRT line to the airport is a good solution for a city of under 500k. I've used the excellent Porto LRT short spur line off line B to the airport which is very good and has reasonable timings but again a LRT network for a city of 700k. Seville also plans to extend their Metro Line 2 (LRT) to the Airport eventually. There are many good examples (the above mentioned Canberra plan) with LRT networks but usually in cities with a 500k to 800k pop.

The distinction with Adelaide is that the pop is much higher - will hit close to 2m by 2050 - and the city covers a much larger land area which Imho makes an interconnected heavy rail connection more durable for the long term. If a sub 15min trip with easy connections then people will use it as the pop increases and other transport options become more congested.

I know that it isn't possible in the current planning cycle but ideally think towards 2100 when the pop will be more like 2.5m+ with a greater density and build the infrastructure to support that. The line could even potentially connect with the long term plan for a city underground line?

However, failing that a LRT line will definitely be better than nothing.....

The Tallinn airport tram was built only in year before we went (2018?). The tram network has had a partial upgrade with new rolling stock on the same line.

City population is in my view only part of the equation, it gets down to existing HR infrastructure, cost of construction, distance etc etc.

Adelaide has
- no city loop HR limiting access to any such airport line with people with baggage and they would likely end up on LR anyway
- Existing HR network has limited foot print of the entire suburban layout
- Plans to expand the HR network are limited by combination of cost, limited funding, available reserved corridors.
- Airport is barely 7km from the core of the city centre, the city CBD is not sprawling and the population base between the parklands and airport is low density housing and commercial.
- 7km is a short HR line and rarely gets sufficient patronage unless there are other supporting factors.
- The opportunity to extend the railway beyond the airport to get more users is limited to a low density narrow beach corridor.
- The actual airport patronage would be limited compared to other cities due to the demographic of the population, lower tourism potential and smaller commercial/industry base.


Benefits of LRT solution for Adelaide
- Much lower cost per km as HR would need to be mostly tunnel
- At 7km to city core its still very practical travel time/distance for LR.
- Would collect more mid route traffic
- vehicle size more suited to airport traffic if frequency of 10min is applied
- Can operate more frequently and efficiently than HR in this application
-  Penetrates the city core more efficiently and more likely to lead to single trip use for city center travelers
- Can still connect to a HR station and core bus routes such as Adelaide station for ease of connection to rest of Greater Adelaide.
- More seamlessly substituted with bus during quieter times of the night.
- Frequency can be more easily increased to suit traffic demand
- Potential extension of service beyond the airport potential to increase usage
- More likely to be uterlised for commuting than HR in the area.
- larger walk-up foot print due to closer spacing of stations.

If the airport was on or near the Gawler, Seaford or OH lines, then a different story.

I used the trams in Tallin back in 02 but not to the airport. The rolling stock was all old Soviet era dated back then but I do enjoy those old eastern European trams that existed in other eastern european cities at the time. A tram/LRT line to the airport is a good solution for a city of under 500k. I've used the excellent Porto LRT short spur line off line B to the airport which is very good and has reasonable timings but again a LRT network for a city of 700k. Seville also plans to extend their Metro Line 2 (LRT) to the Airport eventually. There are many good examples (the above mentioned Canberra plan) with LRT networks but usually in cities with a 500k to 800k pop.

The distinction with Adelaide is that the pop is much higher - will hit close to 2m by 2050 - and the city covers a much larger land area which Imho makes an interconnected heavy rail connection more durable for the long term. If a sub 15min trip with easy connections then people will use it as the pop increases and other transport options become more congested.

I know that it isn't possible in the current planning cycle but ideally think towards 2100 when the pop will be more like 2.5m+ with a greater density and build the infrastructure to support that. The line could even potentially connect with the long term plan for a city underground line?

However, failing that a LRT line will definitely be better than nothing.....

The Tallinn airport tram was built only in year before we went (2018?). The tram network has had a partial upgrade with new rolling stock on the same line.

City population is in my view only part of the equation, it gets down to existing HR infrastructure, cost of construction, distance etc etc.

Adelaide has
- no city loop HR limiting access to any such airport line with people with baggage and they would likely end up on LR anyway
- Existing HR network has limited foot print of the entire suburban layout
- Plans to expand the HR network are limited by combination of cost, limited funding, available reserved corridors.
- Airport is barely 7km from the core of the city centre, the city CBD is not sprawling and the population base between the parklands and airport is low density housing and commercial.
- 7km is a short HR line and rarely gets sufficient patronage unless there are other supporting factors.
- The opportunity to extend the railway beyond the airport to get more users is limited to a low density narrow beach corridor.
- The actual airport patronage would be limited compared to other cities due to the demographic of the population, lower tourism potential and smaller commercial/industry base.


Benefits of LRT solution for Adelaide
- Much lower cost per km as HR would need to be mostly tunnel
- At 7km to city core its still very practical travel time/distance for LR.
- Would collect more mid route traffic
- vehicle size more suited to airport traffic if frequency of 10min is applied
- Can operate more frequently and efficiently than HR in this application
-  Penetrates the city core more efficiently and more likely to lead to single trip use for city center travelers
- Can still connect to a HR station and core bus routes such as Adelaide station for ease of connection to rest of Greater Adelaide.
- More seamlessly substituted with bus during quieter times of the night.
- Frequency can be more easily increased to suit traffic demand
- Potential extension of service beyond the airport potential to increase usage
- More likely to be uterlised for commuting than HR in the area.
- larger walk-up foot print due to closer spacing of stations.

If the airport was on or near the Gawler, Seaford or OH lines, then a different story.

All of these points advocating LR are obviously pertinent and the case for LR is clearly currently more favourable for most. I accept that it is the most likely outcome. However, I still think it misses the long term view, I did specifically say, "think towards 2100 when the pop will be more like 2.5m+ with a greater density and build the infrastructure to support that." I also suggested the line could form part of the suggested CBD underground line. if appropriate.

With great respect, your 2 points (bolded) seem rather part of the problem with most PT planning/thinking in Adelaide insofar as those limitations that you mention are only political and policy wise and can change if the will is there. (There was a time when international flights were deemed unsuitable for Adelaide airport) Those same limitations regarding existing HR networks equally apply elsewhere yet there is the political and policy will to expand HR networks in Bris, Perth, Mel & Syd. However, somehow not in Adelaide. (And this in the only mainland state that doesn't have country train services as we all well know!).

Both Brisbane and Perth were able to build HR airport lines with a around a 2m pop base but in Adelaide it is not considered appropriate for future growth when Adelaide will have around the same pop by 2050? I appreciate that rail is the much neglected cousin of all transport but we should still seek to implement good PT policy that is durable for the long term. An obvious main component to build your economy and population is investing in the infrastructure to facilitate that growth. I honestly struggle to think of a city anywhere in the world with a sub 1.5m pop that has an Airport LR connection.

(Granted at the other end of the pop spectrum, Manilla (10m+) does have the much delayed L1 ext being built to the airport but if you have ever used L1 (or L3) there you will know that it will be patently inappropriate)

A HR line can possible mostly be at grade given the old Holdfast Bay ROW with a less than 1.5km tunnel under Richmond rd but there is no reason it has to be completely a tunnel. However, we could even think outside the box and build it as a metro line using the proposed CBD underground loop and a new eastern suburbs underground line.....The tunneling project of South rd which the govt is throwing $9B at, will result in both greater future residential density in the inner west and the vacation of some of the light industrial businesses in the area - a gradual process that has already been underway for some years. A govt policy specifically promoting higher density in the suburbs between Mile end and West Richmond can solidify a higher pax base for the 3 intermediate stations (Mile End, Mile End South & Richmond) - should be implemented even if it was a LR line.
Yes, a HR line will obviously cost much more but good, durable, interconnected solutions do. That's why Mel is finally spending $10B for the MARL after 50 years of delay. Mmm, what could be done for PT with that $9B being spent on South rd?!?

The difference between HR & LR Airport line  imho is that in 20-50 years you can either have a HR connection with a guaranteed 12-14 min trip time which connects with all other lines and LR at North Tce; or a LR connection with around a 25-30 min trip time which has to stop at most stops & nearly every set of lights before hitting Victoria Sq. As road congestion builds up with pop growth so will delays to a LR line even one with a dedicated ROW.

Anyway, nothing will progress under the current government so there is plenty of time to pontificate, debate and propose solutions for when a future govt is elected.

The main lines of agreement in the responses seem to be;

1) Aldinga ext

2) Nth Adel LR ext

3) Airport LR line

4) Electrification of OH in 20 years?

Not much said about the troubled Belair line and no other new exts or spur lines suggested by most.

No plans to run any trains into the hills?

Would Parklands Station have plenty of platform capacity for any SG passenger services say between Adelaide and Tailem Bend or Adelaide and Port Augusta?

Options for extensions are available.

No plans to run any trains into the hills?

Way to slow going, a bus traveling on the freeway Is so much quicker and cheaper to run.

The main lines of agreement in the responses seem to be;

1) Aldinga ext

2) Nth Adel LR ext

3) Airport LR line

4) Electrification of OH in 20 years?

Not much said about the troubled Belair line and no other new exts or spur lines suggested by most.

OH sparking not 20 years, maybe ~10 y is when the existing fleet will be end of life.

Belair will probably happen at the same time along with major changes either as LR or HR.

I'd also add the city tunnel

No plans to run any trains into the hills?

Way to slow going, a bus traveling on the freeway Is so much quicker and cheaper to run.

The tunnel is subjected to frequent disruptions though - it only takes a single vehicle crash to hold everyone up.

Putting the train back in would add some redundancy. It would also allow Adelaide Hills people to access the southern suburbs, Marion Westfield and Flinders University via the bus interchange at Blackwood.

Why would people further up in the hills want to go to Westfield Marion? What's not available at Mt Barker these days could be obtained in the CBD far more easily (the bus trip from Mt Barker is only ~10 minutes longer than the Blackwood-Marion bus) or delivered to their door.

Flinders Uni doesn't make a good case. The existing public transport option (T840 to Glen Osmond, 300 to Flinders) is faster and there is about to be another option (T840 to Adelaide, train to Flinders).

^I'm also not sure that anyone in the Hills beyond Crafers/Stirling wants to go to Marion Westfield....

An interesting idea arose from a friend the other night who pointed out that the Tonsley/Flinders line is now only 2.5km from the Belair line. We were discussing the suggestion by some that the Belair line be converted to light rail which would not be ideal if you lived around Blackwood or Belair.

However, he suggested that the Tonsley line be extended 2.5km from Flinders to connect with the Belair line just south of SH rd running along a ROW south of Highland drive. Gradients would patently provide alignment challenges but it is not impossible. Perhaps 1km would need to be tunneled?

Electrified Belair services would then all run via Tonsley. Light rail would run to Lynton.

^I'm also not sure that anyone in the Hills beyond Crafers/Stirling wants to go to Marion Westfield....

An interesting idea arose from a friend the other night who pointed out that the Tonsley/Flinders line is now only 2.5km from the Belair line. We were discussing the suggestion by some that the Belair line be converted to light rail which would not be ideal if you lived around Blackwood or Belair.

However, he suggested that the Tonsley line be extended 2.5km from Flinders to connect with the Belair line just south of SH rd running along a ROW south of Highland drive. Gradients would patently provide alignment challenges but it is not impossible. Perhaps 1km would need to be tunneled?

Electrified Belair services would then all run via Tonsley. Light rail would run to Lynton.

And close down the Flinders Medical Centre to pay for it.

Sounds like a plan

In a fantasy world where governments would actually want to invest 9-10 digit number in improving the Belair line, that would be a good way of doing it.

Depending on how much of Bellevue Heights you want to tunnel under and where exactly it connected to the existing route, you'd be looking at around 3.5 to 4.0km of new alignment (assuming a 4.0% ruling gradient) and a significant rebuilding of the current corridor around the connection point to get the Flinders-Blackwood link underneath the ARTC track and up to the same grade.

And where exactly would the new service from Flinders to the hills terminate? What would be the point of it if it only ran in peak hour anyway?

And another question: Electric or diesel? 1 in 25 is unusually steep for a suburban railcar consist. I hope that ARTC don't plan to use it as a detour if the section from Corromandel to Goodwood is blocked for some reason.

With these jokers in office, it would just be seen as some April fools joke during a coffee break.

1. Belair of course.
2. I agree, run a full service and not just peak.
3. Electric of course. It is the 21st century, nobody on earth is building new suburban railways and not electrifying them.
4. Not a problem, it would just mean procuring higher quality EMUs than the overweight low tech rubbish put out by Dandenong.
5. Track gauge would preclude ARTC network trains from using it.
6. Of course, I addressed that in the first line of my previous post. We all know that both major parties in SA would like the Belair line to be closed but only if the other party does the dirty work for them.

1. Belair of course.
2. I agree, run a full service and not just peak.
3. Electric of course. It is the 21st century, nobody on earth is building new suburban railways and not electrifying them.
4. Not a problem, it would just mean procuring higher quality EMUs than the overweight low tech rubbish put out by Dandenong.
5. Track gauge would preclude ARTC network trains from using it.
6. Of course, I addressed that in the first line of my previous post. We all know that both major parties in SA would like the Belair line to be closed but only if the other party does the dirty work for them.

Next question

Why connect the two lines? Eden Hills and Flinders are 2.3km apart. So worst case potential users in the very low density area in the middle have just 1.1 km to walk to catch a train.

For a fraction of the cost of extending the Flinder's line we could upgrade the Lower Belair Line to a 15min timetable and spark it.

Eden Hills would be bypassed if you linked the end of the Flinders line through to meet the existing line in Bellevue Heights, so they would only have one station to choose from.

There would be advantages for the ARTC network in this too, as they would have the full corridor width available for easing a couple of curves and perhaps a 4km loop for running passes.