News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
User avatar
rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3572
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 291 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3901 Post by rev » Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:40 pm

how good is he wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:15 pm
I would expect the Fed labour Govt to propose a deal that they will offer 50% of the cost with the state Lib Govt to chip in the rest if they want it. The question is how much and how long to do it all. My guess is the whole AdeLINK network would cost over $1-$2bn and take 10-20 years. I think Turnbull (Fed libs) before being ousted was going to give a $185m AdeLINK allowance if matched by the state govt. So a drip feed of 4 -5 stages over many years which I expect the Fed. Labour would probably do similar?
Sure, at the pace we do things here in SA, it will take 20 years. But if they got serious, and did multiple line builds at once, it wont take a couple of decades, but the better part of a decade to complete.

What's outrageous is how they pussy foot around these things, drip feed the projects because they want to use these infrastructure projects to play politics against each other. In the end, the only losers are the people of South Australia. The politicians aren't taking any pay cuts, but receive wage increases beyond what any of us plebs could ever hope to receive over the duration of our entire working lives let alone in one hit as they do, plus they walk away with a fat pension while you and I wont have a pension in the near future.

We have stupid groups like parklands groups trying to preserve some dead grass ugly half dead trees. We have another idiotic group started to stop a hotel being built at Adelaide Oval.
What this state and city needs is a group that advocates for developments and for city/state building infrastructure projects like the AdeLINK tram network.
Something to counter the minority of vocal idiots in this city who stopped a net return of parklands over the obahn tunnel.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 137 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3902 Post by rubberman » Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:03 pm

rev wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:40 pm
how good is he wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:15 pm
I would expect the Fed labour Govt to propose a deal that they will offer 50% of the cost with the state Lib Govt to chip in the rest if they want it. The question is how much and how long to do it all. My guess is the whole AdeLINK network would cost over $1-$2bn and take 10-20 years. I think Turnbull (Fed libs) before being ousted was going to give a $185m AdeLINK allowance if matched by the state govt. So a drip feed of 4 -5 stages over many years which I expect the Fed. Labour would probably do similar?
Sure, at the pace we do things here in SA, it will take 20 years. But if they got serious, and did multiple line builds at once, it wont take a couple of decades, but the better part of a decade to complete.

What's outrageous is how they pussy foot around these things, drip feed the projects because they want to use these infrastructure projects to play politics against each other. In the end, the only losers are the people of South Australia. The politicians aren't taking any pay cuts, but receive wage increases beyond what any of us plebs could ever hope to receive over the duration of our entire working lives let alone in one hit as they do, plus they walk away with a fat pension while you and I wont have a pension in the near future.

We have stupid groups like parklands groups trying to preserve some dead grass ugly half dead trees. We have another idiotic group started to stop a hotel being built at Adelaide Oval.
What this state and city needs is a group that advocates for developments and for city/state building infrastructure projects like the AdeLINK tram network.
Something to counter the minority of vocal idiots in this city who stopped a net return of parklands over the obahn tunnel.
I sense your frustration, but one of the big problems is that in Australia, there's almost zero real experience in modern tram system expansion. Sydney, Canberra, Gold Coast systems are expensive as all hell, and are not fast operations. Melbourne is good at operations...sort of, and very good at replacement of existing track. However, new systems? Jeff Kennet got rid of those people.

So...big breath here. If Adelaide wants to do this right, it should use the model that was so successful in 1909, employment of someone who knew trams. Or in the 1920s when it employed WA Webb in the railways. Or when it decided to filter its water, by taking decades to skill up local designers - otherwise we are hostages to consultants who have every incentive to gold plate stuff.

What we have in Australia now is gold plated and slow and often ugly. On present performance, there's simply no way Adelink could be completed at $2bn. On the North Terrace performance, that's 20km only, and that didn't include a new depot.

We either need to employ a Goodman, or WA Webb type from a country which has had trams continuously since the fifties or before. Or admit we need to work up the expertise and only extend once that expertise has been gained. I'd rather have nothing than any more of the same as experienced in Canberra, Sydney, or the Gold Coast.

citywatcher
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:51 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3903 Post by citywatcher » Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:01 pm

They will not develop outer suburb hubs in a city especially one with only one million especially before the inner suburbs are built up
That's just the way it works

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk


ml69
Legendary Member!
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:16 pm
Location: Adelaide SA
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3904 Post by ml69 » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:28 am

citywatcher wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:01 pm
They will not develop outer suburb hubs in a city especially one with only one million especially before the inner suburbs are built up
That's just the way it works

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk
I agree with this. Adelaide will only have one true CBD. Marion, Modbury, Port Adelaide will only ever be regional centres not mini-CBD’s.

Even Melbourne with nearly 5 million people has one CBD.

Yes Sydney has mini CBD’s in Parramatta and North Sydney but I would say that this has developed due to the geographic features of Sydney. The harbour is a huge barrier, hence the development of North Sydney. Also Parramatta is more centrally located than Sydney CBD in the Sydney metro area, hence its development.

Even after 180 years since colonisation, the Adelaide CBD is still smack bang in the middle of the metro area. There’s no need for a second CBD.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3905 Post by SBD » Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:45 am

ml69 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:28 am
citywatcher wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:01 pm
They will not develop outer suburb hubs in a city especially one with only one million especially before the inner suburbs are built up
That's just the way it works

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk
I agree with this. Adelaide will only have one true CBD. Marion, Modbury, Port Adelaide will only ever be regional centres not mini-CBD’s.

Even Melbourne with nearly 5 million people has one CBD.

Yes Sydney has mini CBD’s in Parramatta and North Sydney but I would say that this has developed due to the geographic features of Sydney. The harbour is a huge barrier, hence the development of North Sydney. Also Parramatta is more centrally located than Sydney CBD in the Sydney metro area, hence its development.

Even after 180 years since colonisation, the Adelaide CBD is still smack bang in the middle of the metro area. There’s no need for a second CBD.
The "need" is not because the Adelaide CBD is not in the centre (I agree it is), but because it is a long way from Gawler to Sellicks Beach. Our public transport, road network, daily traffic reports and almost everything else is built on the assumption that we all want to go in to the CBD every day. It's a false assumption already, and we could be doing our city planning differently so that it is not necessary. We used to have metro passenger trains on the line between Port Adelaide and Dry Creek. We have the Port River Expressway/Salisbury Highway Extension to replace it, but do we have matching bus services? I live, work and play in the northern suburbs. I went to the CBD for medical treatment in October, partly because the services are oriented that I have to as what I needed wasn't available at my local hospitals. That was my most recent trip across North Terrace.

User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3906 Post by 1NEEDS2POST » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:28 pm

claybro wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:08 pm
With regard also as to light v heavy rail, I happened to be in SA last week and used both the Glenelg tram and the Grange train. What struck me was the incredible slow pace of the train. It was virtually walking pace out of Adelaide yard, and barely 40 km/h to Bowden. The tram on the other hand, seems to have sped up, the driver that day practically gunned it through the parklands section after leaving South Terrace. Speed between the stops was reasonable as well. The train on the other hand.. not good. If and when a CBD rail loop is constructed, heavy rail would be the go, but for god sake... speed it up.
Trains feel slower than trams because you are higher off the ground. The best way to tell your speed is to use a GPS app on your phone. I've had this running while sitting on the Grange train: https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... id.digihud

From Adelaide to Woodville, it goes about as fast as nearby Port Road (60 km/h). Then, on the Grange line spur, the speed boards say 90 km/h. Sure enough, measured by the GPS on my phone, the train does reach 90 km/h! A typical tram cannot do this.

The Grange train takes 22 minutes to travel from Adelaide to Grange. Driving during the day takes 23 minutes, according to Google Maps. During peak hour, driving is even slower. Not many public transport routes can claim to be faster than driving!

The big problem with the Grange train is its lack of frequency and the perception that it's slow, even though in reality it is surprisingly fast. The best solution to the frequency problem is to have the Grange train terminate at Woodville. The same railcar can then cover the shorter route at a higher frequency. It's easy for passengers to change trains at Woodville.
SBD wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:10 pm
Is the only conceivable growth path for SA to move more people into higher density living and working in inner Adelaide?

Would the optimal transport strategy look different if we had a goal of five or six hubs in the Greater Adelaide area, and a further five cities over two hours (surface transport) from Adelaide?

Instead of expecting everyone to work in the Adelaide CBD and optimise by making it possible for them to live closer, are there models of successful cities/states with multiple centres?

For example, instead of imagining everybody wants to live and work in the same place, perhaps have hubs at
  • Adelaide
  • Port Adelaide
  • Elizabeth/Playford
  • Modbury
  • Marion/Flinders
Each with their own local transport system (buses or trams) and faster rail connections to join them together when we want to move between them.
If we are to have multiple hubs in Adelaide, it would make sense to have them all in a straight line with that line going through the city. It's much easier to connect destinations in a straight line than having hubs all over the place. Obviously, we would only need one high quality public transport route. If the hubs are all over the place and you want to connect them without going through the city (eg Port Adelaide to Glenelg and Port Adelaide to Modbury) it means we need multiple routes, which means funding has to be divided between multiple routes, which means each route is lower quality.

There is not much in the south east of Adelaide. If we want all the hubs to be in a straight line, and there is no point in developing a hub in the south east, then that ALSO means developing a hub in the north west is not a good idea. As much as I like Port Adelaide, geography puts it in this unfortunate location.

This is why I think suburban hubs at Elizabeth and Marion is a good idea, or any other solution with hubs along the Gawler and Seaford lines. Also, when the CBD rail tunnel is built, you could take a direct train between the two locations.

EDIT: on further thought, there is another thing to look for in hubs: whether the line has branched before the hub. For example, trains are more frequent between Goodwood and the city than Seaford and the city. Plus, you have more direct destinations available to you. This is because you can take Seaford, Tonsley and Belair trains from Goodwood. So an ideal hub would be positioned before a branch.

In the south, this means Goodwood. Maybe Goodwood is too close to the city for a hub? The other thing going for Goodwood is that it's on the Glenelg tram. How about Emerson/Black Forest? It's also at the intersection of two major roads and may in the future be on the intersection of two motorways.

In the north, this is less of a problem because there is no branching. That may change, however, when the goods trains use different alignments. If the Adelaide Hills bypass is built, then the standard gauge line north of Salisbury could be opened to public transport. Similarly, the Port Adelaide-Dry Creek line could be opened for public transport and the Northfield line relaid. This would put Dry Creek as a good hub. The problem here is that it would be a greenfield site, unlike further developing Mawson Lakes, Salisbury or Elizabeth.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1847
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3907 Post by claybro » Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:24 pm

Any thoughts on amalgamating the tram and train threads, as they often seem to "morph" into each others issues? I mean even the government had a go at morphing OH from heavy to light rail. It makes it hard to discuss over duplicate threads. Just call it Metro Rail heavy/light.

PD2/20
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:32 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3908 Post by PD2/20 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:29 pm

1NEEDS2POST wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:28 pm
...

From Adelaide to Woodville, it goes about as fast as nearby Port Road (60 km/h). Then, on the Grange line spur, the speed boards say 90 km/h. Sure enough, measured by the GPS on my phone, the train does reach 90 km/h! A typical tram cannot do this.

The Grange train takes 22 minutes to travel from Adelaide to Grange. Driving during the day takes 23 minutes, according to Google Maps. During peak hour, driving is even slower. Not many public transport routes can claim to be faster than driving!

The big problem with the Grange train is its lack of frequency and the perception that it's slow, even though in reality it is surprisingly fast. The best solution to the frequency problem is to have the Grange train terminate at Woodville. The same railcar can then cover the shorter route at a higher frequency. It's easy for passengers to change trains at Woodville.
Torrens Bridge to Woodville is 90 km/h line speed but with restrictions due to platform clearances at some of the stations. There is currently a 35 km/h TSR from Torrens Bridge to Adelaide, which I think is associated either with the operations centre relocation from SAHMRI 2 to Dry Creek or with the upcoming Gawler electrification work.

If you terminate the Grange trains at Woodville you reduce the Adelaide-Woodville frequency to 2 tph offpeak, so even if you increase the Woodville-Grange frequency the effective service to Adelaide won't increase. The important consideration is the single line, which limits the possible frequency. At one time a 23min frequency was run with tight turnrounds at Grange, but the present 30 min frequency is more passenger friendly and more realistic from the operational perspective.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3909 Post by SBD » Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:23 pm

PD2/20 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:29 pm
1NEEDS2POST wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:28 pm
...

From Adelaide to Woodville, it goes about as fast as nearby Port Road (60 km/h). Then, on the Grange line spur, the speed boards say 90 km/h. Sure enough, measured by the GPS on my phone, the train does reach 90 km/h! A typical tram cannot do this.

The Grange train takes 22 minutes to travel from Adelaide to Grange. Driving during the day takes 23 minutes, according to Google Maps. During peak hour, driving is even slower. Not many public transport routes can claim to be faster than driving!

The big problem with the Grange train is its lack of frequency and the perception that it's slow, even though in reality it is surprisingly fast. The best solution to the frequency problem is to have the Grange train terminate at Woodville. The same railcar can then cover the shorter route at a higher frequency. It's easy for passengers to change trains at Woodville.
Torrens Bridge to Woodville is 90 km/h line speed but with restrictions due to platform clearances at some of the stations. There is currently a 35 km/h TSR from Torrens Bridge to Adelaide, which I think is associated either with the operations centre relocation from SAHMRI 2 to Dry Creek or with the upcoming Gawler electrification work.

If you terminate the Grange trains at Woodville you reduce the Adelaide-Woodville frequency to 2 tph offpeak, so even if you increase the Woodville-Grange frequency the effective service to Adelaide won't increase. The important consideration is the single line, which limits the possible frequency. At one time a 23min frequency was run with tight turnrounds at Grange, but the present 30 min frequency is more passenger friendly and more realistic from the operational perspective.
I assumed that terminating the Grange service at Woodville would be to permit more trains to go through to Outer Harbor and the new Port Dock branch. Is there space to put a crossing loop at Seaton Park station to permit a 15-minute service on the Grange line as well? Otherwise, only every second Adelaide service is met by a Grange train. That could still be managed as "To Port Adelaide Central and Grange" and "To Outer Harbor".

User avatar
PeFe
Legendary Member!
Posts: 802
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:47 am
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 95 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3910 Post by PeFe » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:27 am

claybro wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:24 pm
Any thoughts on amalgamating the tram and train threads, as they often seem to "morph" into each others issues? I mean even the government had a go at morphing OH from heavy to light rail. It makes it hard to discuss over duplicate threads. Just call it Metro Rail heavy/light.
Yeah why not a separate thread called "Should the Outer Harbor Line be heavy rail or light rail?"

The arguments go round in circles (or the same things posted over and over again)

Eurostar
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3911 Post by Eurostar » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:45 am

As well as focusing on city routes we should be thinking of what suburban routes we could have. For example a tram route between Glenelg and Flinders University via Diagonal Road and Sturt Road

RetroGamer87
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3912 Post by RetroGamer87 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:57 pm

rubberman wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:44 pm
Spurdo wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:58 pm
Do we really need to have that many tram lines though? Just look how the last extension went, over 100 million for less than a kilometre of track and plagued by defects, plus would anyone other than inner-city yuppie urbanists take a tram all the way to outer harbour when there is a train that could do the trip quicker by about 3 times. Personally, I think we should work on completing south road and electrifying the rail network/getting actual modern trains before starting any more tram extensions.

I understand your concerns. It's what I was getting at when I made my comment.

A big concern in Australia is the huge cost in infrastructure projects. For example, tunneling in Melbourne for the East West motorway was about double what the Swiss can tunnel through the Alps for...in bigger tunnels. The Swiss extended a line in Zurich for about half of what we did in Adelaide per kM, and a quarter of the Sydney debacle. Switzerland is a higher cost country, so we should have been able to do that North Terrace extension at half the cost, or less. Similarly, trams like the Citadis can be bought for about half the price. They are an el cheapo design. We paid more overall for the Citadises than if we'd gotten a top-of-the-line Škoda 15T.

Further, European cities also use buses and trams on the same alignment when it won't disrupt the trams. That provides a big benefit, and acceptance by motorists and motoring organisations like the RAA. SA designed the extension to the Entertainment Centre so buses couldn't even use the lane, even if the trams were not running and substitute buses are required.

What this means is that tram extensions which could and should be economically viable if constructed and operated with European best practice, are marginal at best, and don't fully maximise the use of the asset. At which time people such as yourself can rightly object to spending the money. In that, I guess my position is this: unless the government gets its act together, and gets costs down, I'm not interested in uneconomic slow trams. Speed them up, and get costs down, and I'll vote accordingly.

Edit. I'm not sure how a train could do that trip in a third the time. Using typical acceleration and speeds for trams and trains, you'd have to have an average station spacing of 3km even to keep up with trams. To do that, you'd also need some pretty power hungry and heavy electric railcars. And that's for break-even on schedule timing. To really make heavy rail work, you might need to average 4km between stops to allow railcars to get up to 90kph and cruise a bit. Otherwise, the economics means trams are cheaper. Trying to run heavy railcars shrt distances between stops makes no sense. Even if you get the speed up, trams can still outsprint at short distances annd are way cheaper.
I'm not sure about a third of the time but you have to factor in the amount of time trams spend waiting at traffic lights. Yes I'm aware that the proposed Outer Harbor tram would run on a rail alignment for most of its length but it would still be running on North Terrace and Port Road until it got to the Entertainment Centre. It would still have to wait for the lights at the congested corner of North Terrace and West Terrace.

Also, as I recall the proposal had the tram running along Commercial Road at Port Adelaide instead of going over the viaduct. This would be more traffic lights and further reduce the average speed compared to a train. Even if the tram only travels on the road for these two sections, it could still be enough to make it significantly slower.

Speaking of the Commercial Road viaduct, that was originally built because they didn't want to have trains going up Commercial Road. It caused traffic congestion and death. If it caused traffic congestion in 1918 image how much worse it would be nowadays? Both trams and cars would be slowed down if they had to share the same space. They already built a solution to raise the rails above Commercial Road. If they went back to having the rails at street level, it would show a massive inability to learn from history.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 137 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3913 Post by rubberman » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:16 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:57 pm
rubberman wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:44 pm
Spurdo wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:58 pm
Do we really need to have that many tram lines though? Just look how the last extension went, over 100 million for less than a kilometre of track and plagued by defects, plus would anyone other than inner-city yuppie urbanists take a tram all the way to outer harbour when there is a train that could do the trip quicker by about 3 times. Personally, I think we should work on completing south road and electrifying the rail network/getting actual modern trains before starting any more tram extensions.

I understand your concerns. It's what I was getting at when I made my comment.

A big concern in Australia is the huge cost in infrastructure projects. For example, tunneling in Melbourne for the East West motorway was about double what the Swiss can tunnel through the Alps for...in bigger tunnels. The Swiss extended a line in Zurich for about half of what we did in Adelaide per kM, and a quarter of the Sydney debacle. Switzerland is a higher cost country, so we should have been able to do that North Terrace extension at half the cost, or less. Similarly, trams like the Citadis can be bought for about half the price. They are an el cheapo design. We paid more overall for the Citadises than if we'd gotten a top-of-the-line Škoda 15T.

Further, European cities also use buses and trams on the same alignment when it won't disrupt the trams. That provides a big benefit, and acceptance by motorists and motoring organisations like the RAA. SA designed the extension to the Entertainment Centre so buses couldn't even use the lane, even if the trams were not running and substitute buses are required.

What this means is that tram extensions which could and should be economically viable if constructed and operated with European best practice, are marginal at best, and don't fully maximise the use of the asset. At which time people such as yourself can rightly object to spending the money. In that, I guess my position is this: unless the government gets its act together, and gets costs down, I'm not interested in uneconomic slow trams. Speed them up, and get costs down, and I'll vote accordingly.

Edit. I'm not sure how a train could do that trip in a third the time. Using typical acceleration and speeds for trams and trains, you'd have to have an average station spacing of 3km even to keep up with trams. To do that, you'd also need some pretty power hungry and heavy electric railcars. And that's for break-even on schedule timing. To really make heavy rail work, you might need to average 4km between stops to allow railcars to get up to 90kph and cruise a bit. Otherwise, the economics means trams are cheaper. Trying to run heavy railcars shrt distances between stops makes no sense. Even if you get the speed up, trams can still outsprint at short distances annd are way cheaper.
I'm not sure about a third of the time but you have to factor in the amount of time trams spend waiting at traffic lights. Yes I'm aware that the proposed Outer Harbor tram would run on a rail alignment for most of its length but it would still be running on North Terrace and Port Road until it got to the Entertainment Centre. It would still have to wait for the lights at the congested corner of North Terrace and West Terrace.

Also, as I recall the proposal had the tram running along Commercial Road at Port Adelaide instead of going over the viaduct. This would be more traffic lights and further reduce the average speed compared to a train. Even if the tram only travels on the road for these two sections, it could still be enough to make it significantly slower.

Speaking of the Commercial Road viaduct, that was originally built because they didn't want to have trains going up Commercial Road. It caused traffic congestion and death. If it caused traffic congestion in 1918 image how much worse it would be nowadays? Both trams and cars would be slowed down if they had to share the same space. They already built a solution to raise the rails above Commercial Road. If they went back to having the rails at street level, it would show a massive inability to learn from history.
Just some random thoughts in response. I should imagine that if the Outer Harbor and Grange trains were converted to trams the trams would run to Adelaide Railway Station as the trains do at the moment. The money invested in the grade separation from both the Gawler line and the standard gauge also works for trams to ARS. That means the existing line to the Entertainment Centre could be extended past the Hindmarsh Town Hall, the soccer stadium and up Grange Road. That's an option, rather than a proposal. I figure that just a short extension to the soccer stadium is probably worth it. That's just a guess, mind you.

As far as details in the Port ars concerned, I'd imagine that the tram to Outer Harbor would still use the overpass, and that the idea of Commercial Road would be an extension of the new Port Dock terminus. That is, rather than terminate at Port Dock, trams could continue further into the Port area, possibly terminating in the tourist areas, or maybe residential areas. Similarly, trams could spur off at Largs and/or Semaphore. The Grange tram could also extend to Henley Square and have a spur to West Lakes. Thus, a substantial tram network, far cheaper than the train, encompassing termini at Outer Harbor, Semaphore, Henley Square, West Lakes, central Port Adelaide to the Adelaide Railway Station is quite feasible. These other options simply aren't possible for heavy rail.

RetroGamer87
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3914 Post by RetroGamer87 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:31 pm

rubberman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:16 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:57 pm
rubberman wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:44 pm



I understand your concerns. It's what I was getting at when I made my comment.

A big concern in Australia is the huge cost in infrastructure projects. For example, tunneling in Melbourne for the East West motorway was about double what the Swiss can tunnel through the Alps for...in bigger tunnels. The Swiss extended a line in Zurich for about half of what we did in Adelaide per kM, and a quarter of the Sydney debacle. Switzerland is a higher cost country, so we should have been able to do that North Terrace extension at half the cost, or less. Similarly, trams like the Citadis can be bought for about half the price. They are an el cheapo design. We paid more overall for the Citadises than if we'd gotten a top-of-the-line Škoda 15T.

Further, European cities also use buses and trams on the same alignment when it won't disrupt the trams. That provides a big benefit, and acceptance by motorists and motoring organisations like the RAA. SA designed the extension to the Entertainment Centre so buses couldn't even use the lane, even if the trams were not running and substitute buses are required.

What this means is that tram extensions which could and should be economically viable if constructed and operated with European best practice, are marginal at best, and don't fully maximise the use of the asset. At which time people such as yourself can rightly object to spending the money. In that, I guess my position is this: unless the government gets its act together, and gets costs down, I'm not interested in uneconomic slow trams. Speed them up, and get costs down, and I'll vote accordingly.

Edit. I'm not sure how a train could do that trip in a third the time. Using typical acceleration and speeds for trams and trains, you'd have to have an average station spacing of 3km even to keep up with trams. To do that, you'd also need some pretty power hungry and heavy electric railcars. And that's for break-even on schedule timing. To really make heavy rail work, you might need to average 4km between stops to allow railcars to get up to 90kph and cruise a bit. Otherwise, the economics means trams are cheaper. Trying to run heavy railcars shrt distances between stops makes no sense. Even if you get the speed up, trams can still outsprint at short distances annd are way cheaper.
I'm not sure about a third of the time but you have to factor in the amount of time trams spend waiting at traffic lights. Yes I'm aware that the proposed Outer Harbor tram would run on a rail alignment for most of its length but it would still be running on North Terrace and Port Road until it got to the Entertainment Centre. It would still have to wait for the lights at the congested corner of North Terrace and West Terrace.

Also, as I recall the proposal had the tram running along Commercial Road at Port Adelaide instead of going over the viaduct. This would be more traffic lights and further reduce the average speed compared to a train. Even if the tram only travels on the road for these two sections, it could still be enough to make it significantly slower.

Speaking of the Commercial Road viaduct, that was originally built because they didn't want to have trains going up Commercial Road. It caused traffic congestion and death. If it caused traffic congestion in 1918 image how much worse it would be nowadays? Both trams and cars would be slowed down if they had to share the same space. They already built a solution to raise the rails above Commercial Road. If they went back to having the rails at street level, it would show a massive inability to learn from history.
Just some random thoughts in response. I should imagine that if the Outer Harbor and Grange trains were converted to trams the trams would run to Adelaide Railway Station as the trains do at the moment. The money invested in the grade separation from both the Gawler line and the standard gauge also works for trams to ARS. That means the existing line to the Entertainment Centre could be extended past the Hindmarsh Town Hall, the soccer stadium and up Grange Road. That's an option, rather than a proposal. I figure that just a short extension to the soccer stadium is probably worth it. That's just a guess, mind you.

As far as details in the Port ars concerned, I'd imagine that the tram to Outer Harbor would still use the overpass, and that the idea of Commercial Road would be an extension of the new Port Dock terminus. That is, rather than terminate at Port Dock, trams could continue further into the Port area, possibly terminating in the tourist areas, or maybe residential areas. Similarly, trams could spur off at Largs and/or Semaphore. The Grange tram could also extend to Henley Square and have a spur to West Lakes. Thus, a substantial tram network, far cheaper than the train, encompassing termini at Outer Harbor, Semaphore, Henley Square, West Lakes, central Port Adelaide to the Adelaide Railway Station is quite feasible. These other options simply aren't possible for heavy rail.
I hope you're right about them them not abandoning the viaduct and the Torrens Junction underpass. I read somewhere there was a proposal to repurpose the underpass to get trams from the existing Entertainment Centre station into North Adelaide. This would imply the tram would still run up Port Road and then turn back East. This seems like a very indirect route. Extending from the Festival Plaza stop straight up to O'Connell Street would be a more direct route into North Adelaide's commercial heart.

I imagine Port Dock would be the terminus for the Port Adelaide tramline rather than continuing through it. The tram could could go through Central Port Adelaide before getting to Port Dock and then Terminate there.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1847
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3915 Post by claybro » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:58 pm

rubberman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:16 pm
Just some random thoughts in response. I should imagine that if the Outer Harbor and Grange trains were converted to trams the trams would run to Adelaide Railway Station as the trains do at the moment. The money invested in the grade separation from both the Gawler line and the standard gauge also works for trams to ARS. That means the existing line to the Entertainment Centre could be extended past the Hindmarsh Town Hall, the soccer stadium and up Grange Road. That's an option, rather than a proposal. I figure that just a short extension to the soccer stadium is probably worth it. That's just a guess, mind you.

As far as details in the Port ars concerned, I'd imagine that the tram to Outer Harbor would still use the overpass, and that the idea of Commercial Road would be an extension of the new Port Dock terminus. That is, rather than terminate at Port Dock, trams could continue further into the Port area, possibly terminating in the tourist areas, or maybe residential areas. Similarly, trams could spur off at Largs and/or Semaphore. The Grange tram could also extend to Henley Square and have a spur to West Lakes. Thus, a substantial tram network, far cheaper than the train, encompassing termini at Outer Harbor, Semaphore, Henley Square, West Lakes, central Port Adelaide to the Adelaide Railway Station is quite feasible. These other options simply aren't possible for heavy rail.
Not just random thoughts rubberman, all of this for pretty much the cost of upgrading to electric heavy rail with basically the same operation as currently exists (a waste IMO) These destinations are all contained as one of the preferred options for the NW corridor (probably currently gathering dust.). Many here seem to be anti light rail for this corridor, but as I assume you are European, or seem to have a good first hand grasp of how proper light rail operates, you can also imagine the far greater flexibility at lower cost than heavy rail provides. The geography of the North-western suburbs practically screams out for light rail, due to its multiple points of high activity, flat terrain and some relatively (for Adelaide) high density areas in close proximity.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brando, gnrc_louis and 7 guests