News & Discussion: O-Bahn

[citywatcher]

...something really needs to be done about Grenfell street if they are to commit to OBahn- it really diminishes the whole thing.-A light rail on this stretch would be running on its own reserved corridor.

I catch the 559 from Grenfell St .
This leaves the track at Paradise and travels through Dernancourt Hope Valley Highbury and Vista.
It's not hugely patronised. Yesterday it went straight past me with the sorry full sign. Can guarantee it would have emptied at Paradise and there's me for whom the service was designed stranded back in the city. ...

As volumes increase I predict we'll eventually see some bus routes going to feeder roles only and terminating at the interchanges. Generic higher capacity "O'bahn busses could then run to the interchanges, either all 3 and then turn around at TTG, or could run express to one interchange only.
Such dedicated high capacity buses could be built extra long with multiple articulated sections. Modification might be required at the interchanges to allow such busses the turning circle required to turn around. Buses could utilise Light Sq to turn around at the city end.

Which becomes a shortfall that some of have used to argue against rail

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[monotonehell]

I catch the 559 from Grenfell St .
This leaves the track at Paradise and travels through Dernancourt Hope Valley Highbury and Vista.
It's not hugely patronised. Yesterday it went straight past me with the sorry full sign. Can guarantee it would have emptied at Paradise and there's me for whom the service was designed stranded back in the city. ...

As volumes increase I predict we'll eventually see some bus routes going to feeder roles only and terminating at the interchanges. Generic higher capacity "O'bahn busses could then run to the interchanges, either all 3 and then turn around at TTG, or could run express to one interchange only.
Such dedicated high capacity buses could be built extra long with multiple articulated sections. Modification might be required at the interchanges to allow such busses the turning circle required to turn around. Buses could utilise Light Sq to turn around at the city end.

Which becomes a shortfall that some of have used to argue against rail.

Exactly.

This seems a bit counter-intuitive and counter to current trends.

Back when the O-Bahn was lesser patronised, the PTB stopped running all services to the city in favour of feeder buses. Then when patronage peaked they introduced more main line services and started to run the feeder routes right through in peak. (From suburbs to city in morning, from city to suburbs in afternoon, and connection services at other times / directions.)

Now as illustrated by citywatcher, we are seeing more former feeder only services being extended to full runs at peak.

I think, during peak, capacity would be better increased by running more individual services to different stops and end points. Not by having more transfers onto larger vehicles. That way you could run more services along the track, then terminate them at different points along Grenfell street - instead of trying to unload a lot of passengers all at the same stop.

(You may have forgot that buses already have a turn around at the Light Square end - the O-Bahn terminus on Currie Street. Although with the potential to become congested if turn arounds again become the norm.

[citywatcher]

Actually I meant against obahn. The improvements people keep mentioning would already have been built into a rail system which could be extended and only highlight obahns shortcomings. . People alighting at interchanges, higher density , feeder services , the problem of Grenfell st ........

Having to spend $160m on a tunnel

[SBD]

Do other cities run bus feeder services to tram terminus stations? Or do they run trams and buses to heavy rail stations, like the Port Adelaide and Gawler tram networks (did SA have any others?) used to feed in to the train lines for faster trips in to Adelaide?

[adelaide transport]

Sydney certainly do with key interchanges at Chatswood Rail Station which is like a City by itself. Not only is it a Bus Interchange, but also a very large Westfield Shopping Centre, with lots of shops banks, restaraunts and lots of Multi -Storey Apartments. It is always very crowded with many bus routes serving the station and very frequent train services in both direction.
Bondi is the same with it being the terminus for the Eastern Suburbs Rail, with a very large Westfield Shopping Centre and the same facilities as Chatswood.

[EBG]

Night work is being done on resurfacing Hackney Rd on both sides between North Tce and the river Torrens.

[SBD]

Sydney certainly do with key interchanges at Chatswood Rail Station which is like a City by itself. Not only is it a Bus Interchange, but also a very large Westfield Shopping Centre, with lots of shops banks, restaraunts and lots of Multi -Storey Apartments. It is always very crowded with many bus routes serving the station and very frequent train services in both direction.
Bondi is the same with it being the terminus for the Eastern Suburbs Rail, with a very large Westfield Shopping Centre and the same facilities as Chatswood.

Those examples both have heavy rail links to Sydney, not trams. My question was about using light rail as the trunk that is fed by buses, as that appears to be soem people's intent in the conversation about converting O-Bahn to light rail.

[fishinajar]

...A tram is a tram wether it goes to Glenelg or anywhere else.

No. A "tram" can operate as light rail, ie. just like a regular train line, with speeds at and above what the o-bahn operates at. One advantage over heavy rail however is light rails (trams) ability to then run along the street where necessary. Ignoring demonstrated performance because we don't have an example in Adelaide is being a little ignorant.

...I think, during peak, capacity would be better increased by running more individual services to different stops and end points. Not by having more transfers onto larger vehicles. That way you could run more services along the track, then terminate them at different points along Grenfell street - instead of trying to unload a lot of passengers all at the same stop.

(You may have forgot that buses already have a turn around at the Light Square end - the O-Bahn terminus on Currie Street. Although with the potential to become congested if turn arounds again become the norm.

As volume increases, ie. too many buses using the o-bahn and grenfell/currie streets, we will not be able to run all buses the whole way. Also not all routes will fill their own buses to capacity, leaving either some buses partly empty (wasted capacity) or people utilise these buses to then transfer or alight to take their car from interchanges (meaning people may not be able to get on their own bus (route).
Dedicated o-bahn only buses could be multi sectioned with much greater capacity, but could not navigate suburban street networks. They would require a greater turning around area, ie. light sq.

[citywatcher]

...A tram is a tram wether it goes to Glenelg or anywhere else.

No. A "tram" can operate as light rail, ie. just like a regular train line, with speeds at and above what the o-bahn operates at. One advantage over heavy rail however is light rails (trams) ability to then run along the street where necessary. Ignoring demonstrated performance because we don't have an example in Adelaide is being a little ignorant.

...I think, during peak, capacity would be better increased by running more individual services to different stops and end points. Not by having more transfers onto larger vehicles. That way you could run more services along the track, then terminate them at different points along Grenfell street - instead of trying to unload a lot of passengers all at the same stop.

(You may have forgot that buses already have a turn around at the Light Square end - the O-Bahn terminus on Currie Street. Although with the potential to become congested if turn arounds again become the norm.

As volume increases, ie. too many buses using the o-bahn and grenfell/currie streets, we will not be able to run all buses the whole way. Also not all routes will fill their own buses to capacity, leaving either some buses partly empty (wasted capacity) or people utilise these buses to then transfer or alight to take their car from interchanges (meaning people may not be able to get on their own bus (route).
Dedicated o-bahn only buses could be multi sectioned with much greater capacity, but could not navigate suburban street networks. They would require a greater turning around area, ie. light sq.

?

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[citywatcher]

Don't know what you ll call demonstrated short falls in performance then. Don't know what you would call defending these short falls either.

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[fishinajar]

Don't know what you ll call demonstrated short falls in performance then. Don't know what you would call defending these short falls either.

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

Apologies city. I think I may have misunderstood you.

[citywatcher]

Not necessary
My point is sure the obahn is ok. I just think rail would have been better IN THE LONG RUN. We proposed in this city way back CITY METRO NEAPTR MATS ETC . I just feel we missed an opportunity. I don't want to see obahn dug up. We do have our work cut out now to make it work as well as is needed.

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[monotonehell]

Actually I meant against obahn. The improvements people keep mentioning would already have been built into a rail system which could be extended and only highlight obahns shortcomings. . People alighting at interchanges, higher density , feeder services , the problem of Grenfell st
...
Having to spend $160m on a tunnel
...
My point is sure the obahn is ok. I just think rail would have been better IN THE LONG RUN. We proposed in this city way back CITY METRO NEAPTR MATS ETC . I just feel we missed an opportunity. I don't want to see obahn dug up. We do have our work cut out now to make it work as well as is needed.

All of the things you mention as specific to the O-Bahn apply to rail as well. Most perceived advantages to rail are bolt-on features. Bolt-on features can be applied to a guided busway, an un-guided busway, or even a non-busway with a distinct route. Continuous off-track running is pretty much the only intrinsic benefit of the O-Bahn over rail. Rail's only real intrinsic benefits are economy through easy availability of rollingstock (popularity), and economy of scale when you need to move a lot of passengers along a linear path. This is where O-Bahn shines over rail on relatively short routes - like the N.E. Suburbs. And hence why rail would not have been better in the long run. The relative short run from the N.E. Suburbs would make transferring to a rail corridor very unattractive. More people would be in their cars and we would be talking about the need for a N.E. Freeway instead of a tunnel through the parklands.

As volume increases, ie. too many buses using the o-bahn and grenfell/currie streets, we will not be able to run all buses the whole way.

Based on what quantification? When the O-Bahn reaches its capacity, it is already near the top of light rail's capacity and time to consider heavy rail.

The only concern is the bottleneck of running back onto street. This can be addressed with more stops along Grenfell Street. The PTB are already looking into this with the plans to make Grenfell a PT only street.

Also not all routes will fill their own buses to capacity, leaving either some buses partly empty (wasted capacity) or people utilise these buses to then transfer or alight to take their car from interchanges (meaning people may not be able to get on their own bus (route).

Not all routes need to run all the way. Not all routes need to run all the way, all the time. The current paradigm is to only run lower patronised routes during those times when they are more patronised. For example; the 556, 557 and 559 buses are run as feeders at all times, except in the morning peak, when the run into the city direct, and the afternoon peak, when they run out of the city direct.

Additionally, an aim (for economy) is to run buses at near capacity as often as possible, but it's not always necessary or possible to do so. The main aim is to encourage people out of their cars during peak periods. So all this talk of capacity only really applies to the 2 or 3 hours at each end of the working day.

Dedicated o-bahn only buses could be multi sectioned with much greater capacity, but could not navigate suburban street networks. They would require a greater turning around area, ie. light sq.

The need for greater capacity vehicles assumes that we have a great quantity of transferring passengers. If we have a great number of transferring passengers, then the system is failing. Remember: transfers incur a 19 minute perceived delay, thus encouraging people to jump in their cars. As soon as you are devising elements of a system for transfers on a short route, you need to ask yourself if you're doing the right thing.

Such higher capacity vehicles are used on the Bogota Busway. Which isn't guided, but operates in dedicated corridors down very straight routes. They work for Bogota, but require specialised infrastructure for loading and unloading as well as the fairly straight routes. This is before considering the engineering challenges of running double bendies on a guided busway.

[rubberman]

Actually monotone, the introduction of all door loading/unloading will solve most of the Grenfell Street end problems.

I have video of five door bendy buses in Ostrava loading over 150 pax in 35 seconds. That's from the bus pulling up at the stop to pulling out from the kerb. That's routine performance in Europe, boring, everyday routine.

In Grenfell and King William Streets, when we previously had 3 door loading and unloading of MTT buses, with the added difficulty of getting into high floor buses, we could move more people with less stops. Buses would move in, load, then leave fast enough that extra stops weren't necessary. It was only when we used single door loading and two door buses that we had to use increased numbers of stops due to the increased dwell time.

Those extra stops and buses weaving in and out from the bus-only lane make Grenfell Street far more congested than it needs to be. Five door euro-buses and all door loading would make a huge difference to King William St, Grenfell St and North Tce.

The material point being, that the Grenfell and TTP end congestion will be hugely reduced when all door loading is instituted on the O-Bahn, and is unlikely to contribute to any distant future conversion to heavy rail.

[claybro]

All door entry is a relatively easy/cheap way to greatly speed up the Obahn, but having not used the Obahn for a while now, is anyone able to advise if there are barricades for Metro Card entry at the interchanges? This would surely be required to prevent fare evasion with all door boarding.