If Labor is so keen to create jobs , why are they so silent on a passenger service to the Barossa, as this surely would create some jobs to fill the post Holden void. This was a subject of a lengthy thread some years ago.
It comes down to a number of factors:
- cost of upgrading the line - 12 months ago it was a 50kph freight only line and it would need to be brought up to 100+kph passenger standards, an exercise that will not be cheap - probably funded by issuing bonds.
- the cost of the vehicles. Existing vehicles might do but they would need to be upgraded with toilets since the distance is not inconsiderable. Existing vehicles would be reaching their end-of-life - again funded by a bond issue.
- the actual demand for Barossa to Gawler, Elizabeth, Salisbury or Adelaide trains - probably 2 fairly minor peaks with a trickle the rest of the day.
- The somewhat limited return through the fare box.
- The number of on-going jobs is limited only by the limited number of services ()
Now bonds will need to be serviced by annual interest payment which will partly be offset by the fares, otherwise the whole service would need to be heavily subsidised, quite probably to the extent of over $200 per person per journey.
The service was withdrawn in the late 1960s due to just these factors. The old vehicles were getting very long in the tooth and the purchase of new vehicles could just not be justified.
Roads around the Barossa are commonly 80 km roads.
To travel above 80 means you do not enjoy the scenery as much.
Over the years I have travelled on many trains, steam diesel and railcar.
Day night, whenever and the slower they travelled the more I enjoyed it and consumed more product.
Instead of issuing bonds why not try redeploying some of the 1500 staff from the Premiers department.
2, In days of old the recently scrapped jumbos had some fitted with toilets. The old drawings would be easy enough to find.
And god forbid we could employ some local people to fit them and maintain them.
3. A commuter service from Barossa to City in the AM as long as it arrives in city by 9am would be patronised well instead of the car loads changing at Gawler.
Once again people from the "transit lounge" or the 1500 untouchables in the Premiers department could investigate the sources of traffic at North Gawler, Gawler etc.
A departure from the city around 9 am would be a useful tool to compete with the existing bus services. The existing services could be converted to shuttles around the Barossa to complement the shuttles through the Barossa.
A return to the city by 5 would allow an extra commuter train to leave around 5.00pm for the Barossa.
Where do you get 100kph suburban trains in Adelaide? I thought the maximum speed is 90kph. It is not 90 on the Grange or Belair lines, so lets compare apples with apples instead of mangoes!!!!
When G&W took over I think they inherited an 80 kph line so that is what they are supposed to maintain and return.
Around Dorrien I think there are still 80k speed boards and is the bend into Nuri still sign posted at 65kph?
4. How are you so sure the return at the farebox will be low. ??
Is this a sock puppet comment?
I have travelled on a full 14 car train services, MacAvaney made a profit running lots of full bluebirds to the Valley, All charging "profitable" fares
I spent several hours on the platform at Tanunda on an evening with a show and shine event happening.
Hundreds of people passed the station, saw the shiny rails ( from the Stonie) and asked me when the next train was departing?
When Festivals occur there are often road closures and a train service would be able to move hundreds of people , avoid traffic hassles, and provide food and drink services on the train.
5. twenty ongoing jobs would have more of a positive impact on the State economy than just consigning people to the dole.
One reason for the abrupt departure of the jumbos were the elevated cabs.
I can understand the safety implications of this, but we are a few years away from the start of the submarine project.
Could we not have employed a couple of engineers, a couple of structural boilermakers and some carriage fitters to redesign the front of a few jumbos to provide overhead proof cabs. This would have provided transition experience for some existing workers, and could have been an avenue for a few apprentices to gain some practical experience.
I see this as a set of words being used two ways.
1 Why cant we do this?
2 Why we cant do this!!
Same words , very different intention.
And add another thought in.
In my truck driving days.
A regular job was to collect a load of aluminium from the plant at Angaston.
Deliver it to Elizabeth.
There it was repacked onto 40 ft containers for distribution to the rest of Australia.
Rail was the preferred carrier for the interstate runs.
Are any of those locations adjacent to railway lines?
Is the current government actually interested in creating jobs for local people or just creating jobs from foreign companies.