Re: Broad gauge or standard gauge

[Michael Kurkowski <mk@netstra.com.au>]

Hi,

Would you mind please turning HTML off and reposing your article? HTML is 
bad netiquete(sp?) and not supported by everyone.

What you see below is what it looks like for non-HTML newsreaders.

thanks,
Michael.

Neil Waller played poultry voodoo in <373FD161.2899BCD2@iweb.net.au> and 
kindly spat out amongst the pins and chicken bones:

>&nbsp;
><p>Stephen Devenish wrote:
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>This is correct...&nbsp; Trans Adeliade will 
announce
>the winner of a tender to
><br>install some 20,000 (I think) gauge convertable concrete sleepers on
>the
><br>line that heads up to the harbour area (I will advise the exact 
location
><br>when I dig it up)&nbsp; The sleepers use the new Pandrol Fast Clip
>set up with
><br>the standard wine glass convertable shoulder for broad gauge or 
Standard
><br>gauge.&nbsp; John Holland has tendered for the job of installing the
>sleepers
><br>and they are gauge convertable so that if Trans Adelaide wants to 
convert
><br>the line to running TRAMS yes this is correct TRAMS they can with 
little
><br>trouble.&nbsp; All this was announced at the Rail Track convention
>in Melbourne
><br>last week, a paper was given on the process by the Project Manager
>for the
><br>concrete sleeper installation.
><p>Cheers
><p>Stephen Devenish
><br>John Holland Rail Division
><p>Barry Campbell &lt;barryC@qimr.edu.au> wrote in article
><br>&lt;373A4E29.157C94DC@qimr.edu.au>...
><br>> In the ARHS Bulletin for May 1999 there was a report that
><br>> TransAdelaide(?) Adelaidrans(?) whatever has been relaying various
>bits
><br>> of track with gauge convertible concrete sleepers. Do they know
><br>> something I don't know?
><br>>
><br>>
><br>> Barry Campbell
><br>></blockquote>
>The sleepers are going in the Adelaide - Woodville section.
><p>Derek Scrafton, when he was Director of Transport, has stated that only
>2 Adelaide Rail lines warrant heavy rail - Gawler and Noarlunga Centre
>- the others, Outer Harbor, Grange, Belair and Tonsley were much better
>suited to light rail.
><p>I would suggest that Belair is particularly ideal for light rail 
provided
>it had significant double track sections (forget about taking back the
>ARTC SG main) or considerably more loops.
><p>Grange would follow, as would Tonsley which line could be extended 
through
>Science Park to Darlington (making a detour around the Police Complex 
built
>immediately in its path), or down Sturt Road to Marion Shops.
><p>Were the Grange line to be converted to light rail then you might as
>well do the Outer Harbor line as well.
><p>If the SG freight line crosses the Port River somewhere around the 
grain
>silos as is one plan being floated in the Transport department then there
>would be no clash of light and heavy rail on the Outer Harbor line.
><p>One way of connecting the Outer Harbor line to the city is to cross
>the north line in the parklands were the two line diverge, come along War
>Memorial Drive, accross the Morphet St. Bridge into Currie Street the King
>William St. to the tram terminus in Victoria Square to make an end-on 
junction
>with the Glenelg line.
><p>The Belair tram could join the Glenelg tram at Goodwood.
><br>&nbsp;
><p>Food for thought ....
><p>Cheers
><br>Neil