Barossa tourist plan derailed as Supreme Court backs State Government

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 21 Apr 2020 21:15
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
Oh my what a shame. I don't think you could justify under RSNL reintroducing a new level crossing where one has been previously decommissioned, not to mention the woeful cost associated with doing so. Then throw Kromers Crossing into the mix... Well it's just not looking good for Mt Geber.

But I suppose Rod Hook is more than happy to see a fool parted with his money.
How exactly do you remove a level crossing?
Bridge or Underpass.
nswtrains

Or in this case, if the story is correct, just pave over it as it has not been used since 2014.

Sponsored advertisement

  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Oh my what a shame. I don't think you could justify under RSNL reintroducing a new level crossing where one has been previously decommissioned, not to mention the woeful cost associated with doing so. Then throw Kromers Crossing into the mix... Well it's just not looking good for Mt Geber.

But I suppose Rod Hook is more than happy to see a fool parted with his money.
How exactly do you remove a level crossing?
Bridge or Underpass.

Or in this case, if the story is correct, just pave over it as it has not been used since 2014.
bingley hall

Standard form for SAR's former regional railways...move along folks...nothing to see here.

M.
  nm39 Chief Commissioner

Location: By a road taking pictures
Oh my what a shame. I don't think you could justify under RSNL reintroducing a new level crossing where one has been previously decommissioned, not to mention the woeful cost associated with doing so. Then throw Kromers Crossing into the mix... Well it's just not looking good for Mt Geber.

But I suppose Rod Hook is more than happy to see a fool parted with his money.
Cato56
I agree. The current way of thinking is for all crossings of railways to be grade separated so that an introduction of a level crossing is verboten. This is in my view sensible because we have to pander to the lowest common denominator in mentality and some people have no idea how to behave near something that would flatten them with no noticeable effect on it.
  62430 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Metro Adelaide
How exactly do you remove a level crossing?
Gayspie
Or in the case of the Murray St crossing avoid the expense of incorporating the presently unused level crossing into the Gawler Line axle-counter based resignalling. This could be followed by the erection of a Crossing out of Use sign, subsequent removal of boom gates and lights and the ultimate road repaving.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

But I suppose Rod Hook is more than happy to see a fool parted with his money.
Cato56
This will be an interesting scenario.

It's true that Captain Hook has the previous form of shaking down the people of SA for hundreds of millions of dollars of wastage on state-run infrastructure projects.

My guess is that he will quickly discover that Geber keeps a far tighter grip on his cheque book than Pat Conlon did and he'll walk away with nothing more than his initial retainer payment.

I heard on the grapevine that the crossing at Murray Street in Gawler will be removed as part of the electrification project.
AN830
I hope not.

GREP is already way over budget without splashing around cash on out of scope nonsense like that. Take care of the thousands and the millions will take care of themselves.

No need to do anything more than seal over of the crossing next time there are roadworks scheduled in the area, nicely covering over the rails and leaving them protected from the elements pending a potential future re-use. In the event of a genuine attempt to reinstate the line, scraping off the bitumen at the level crossings would be the easiest part of the whole project.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

I heard on the grapevine that the crossing at Murray Street in Gawler will be removed as part of the electrification project.
I hope not.

GREP is already way over budget without splashing around cash on out of scope nonsense like that. Take care of the thousands and the millions will take care of themselves.

No need to do anything more than seal over of the crossing next time there are roadworks scheduled in the area, nicely covering over the rails and leaving them protected from the elements pending a potential future re-use. In the event of a genuine attempt to reinstate the line, scraping off the bitumen at the level crossings would be the easiest part of the whole project.
justapassenger
The problem is once they tar over that LX and remove the boom gates, that's it. Its in a suburban area so that LX will never be reinstated and any proposal to reopen the line will include an over pass adding $10M or so to the project cost.

It would be at this point I would concede that line wouldn't be reopened for at least the next 20-30 years, if ever so may as well rip up the tracks and convert it to a rail trail, for which I believe it would be very popular.
  DJPeters Deputy Commissioner

They could also remove the rails and just put back the road surface at a lower level if they are rebuilding the roadway or something there it might remove a bit of a mound there and enable the road to be widened there either first up or at a later date.  As the bitumen over them will wear away and make for a bumpy and noisy ride over the rails.  Removing it completely will solve a lot of problems for the State Govt though as to put it back in will not come cheap and will put another nail in the lines coffin as well.
  phower Chief Commissioner

Location: Over on Kangaroo Island Sth Aust
They could also remove the rails and just put back the road surface at a lower level if they are rebuilding the roadway or something there it might remove a bit of a mound there and enable the road to be widened there either first up or at a later date.  As the bitumen over them will wear away and make for a bumpy and noisy ride over the rails.  Removing it completely will solve a lot of problems for the State Govt though as to put it back in will not come cheap and will put another nail in the lines coffin as well.
DJPeters
I vote we make all roads gravel and this would be cheaper and slow some people down, well we may as well because what ever is mooted to assist the minority is always thrown out ,one is forgetting not all has money to have a car , I know two families who live in the Barrossa and have no car and they survive on a month by month basis , don't talk up your sleave  like most do on this .  if its not effecting you  its wrong you are saying
  steam4ian Chief Commissioner

There is another reason why the LX will be removed with the Electrification project.

Having the rails continue through the LX extends the step and touch zone for the electrification meaning more bonding and so cost.
  splod Junior Train Controller

Location: Darwin, NT
There is another reason why the LX will be removed with the Electrification project.

Having the rails continue through the LX extends the step and touch zone for the electrification meaning more bonding and so cost.
"steam4ian"

I take it the proposal to extend the Metro service to Concordia has been shelved/dropped/burnt with fire?
  Gayspie Deputy Commissioner

Location: Adelaide, SA
There is another reason why the LX will be removed with the Electrification project.

Having the rails continue through the LX extends the step and touch zone for the electrification meaning more bonding and so cost.

I take it the proposal to extend the Metro service to Concordia has been shelved/dropped/burnt with fire?
splod
I agree. There is no need to extend the Gawler Line beyond Gawler Central due to the low patronage potential of these areas.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: