News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1242
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 137 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3961 Post by rubberman » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:56 am

mattwinter wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:14 am
Fantastic... about time. Always such a joke when a tram of 80 people gets held up by one guy waiting for the light to go orange to turn right...

Plenty of complainers on the Advertiser website about right hand turns being removed, I don't think it's a big deal, but I wonder if they would consider hook turns?
But...but...but, I thought the Liberals liked right turns! :hilarious:

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 773
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3962 Post by SBD » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:01 am

arki wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:17 am
kymbosa wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:40 am
Oh no to side platforms. This slows the trams even more.

The current set up at city south allows a better flow for the trams through the lights. While red the boarding takes place, than on green the tram heads off.

The issues with this set up is that a tram travelling north now stops at the lights, travels across the intersection to stop again,
This isn't true with proper signal synchronisation. For example the stop at Pirie St is right after a set of signals if heading north, but you will find a tram rarely gets stopped here. You know it is synchronised with the tram because the lights change to red almost immediately after a tram crosses.
The Pirie Street stop has a single centre island platform for trams in both directions. The current City South layout has separate centre platforms for each direction, so both are before the lights. It could continue to be a split stop if the platforms are moved to the outside of the tracks instead of between them - this could mean the total width occupied by the tram stops is less than is needed at Pirie Street as the total stop is stretched out longer along King William Street.

PD2/20
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:32 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3963 Post by PD2/20 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:26 am

arki wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:17 am
kymbosa wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:40 am
Oh no to side platforms. This slows the trams even more.

The current set up at city south allows a better flow for the trams through the lights. While red the boarding takes place, than on green the tram heads off.

The issues with this set up is that a tram travelling north now stops at the lights, travels across the intersection to stop again,
This isn't true with proper signal synchronisation. For example the stop at Pirie St is right after a set of signals if heading north, but you will find a tram rarely gets stopped here. You know it is synchronised with the tram because the lights change to red almost immediately after a tram crosses.
Kymbosa, the issue you refer to isn't centre v side platforms rather staggered/non-staggered platforms. City South is unusual in having staggered centre platforms. Most of the major road crossings south of Greenhill Rd have staggered side platforms.

Arki, Pirie St must be then be one of the few junctions where trams are not subject to traffic light delays. It suggests that the Franklin St and Pirie St lights are reasonably synchronised, rather than trams getting pre-emptive priority at lights.

citywatcher
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:51 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3964 Post by citywatcher » Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:12 pm

Nort wrote:
citywatcher wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:44 am
For a govt that slashes and hates trams it finds millions to spend on unnecessarily doing up a little used tram stop that will create traffic chaos
Typical

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk
In 2007 when the tram was extended from Victoria Square to North Tce right hand turns off of King William St were removed.

That extension caused concern and mass hysteria over traffic snarls and accessibility, however once complete, opposition to the project quickly waned.
It begins.
Not comparing like for like and for $17m ?

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk


Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 922
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 103 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3965 Post by Nort » Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:47 pm

citywatcher wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:12 pm
Nort wrote:
citywatcher wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:44 am
For a govt that slashes and hates trams it finds millions to spend on unnecessarily doing up a little used tram stop that will create traffic chaos
Typical

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk
In 2007 when the tram was extended from Victoria Square to North Tce right hand turns off of King William St were removed.

That extension caused concern and mass hysteria over traffic snarls and accessibility, however once complete, opposition to the project quickly waned.
It begins.
Not comparing like for like and for $17m ?

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk
These complaints about how tram works will cause traffic problems are entirely different to complaints about how tram works a few hundred meters away on the same street will cause traffic problems!

I'll bite though - what do you think would be a reasonable cost to carry out the necessary tramline and stop works, and if you dispute they are necessary why do you think this stop doesn't need to meet the legal access requirements?

User avatar
timtam20292
Legendary Member!
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:03 pm
Has thanked: 780 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3966 Post by timtam20292 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:55 pm

Received this today.
IMG_20190207_0005.jpg

User avatar
timtam20292
Legendary Member!
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:03 pm
Has thanked: 780 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3967 Post by timtam20292 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:00 pm

Other side. Click both for bigger and better quality.
IMG_20190207_0006.jpg

PD2/20
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:32 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3968 Post by PD2/20 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:11 pm

rubberman wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:54 am

I am concerned about the relaying of that section though. Two reasons: first, in Melbourne, they'd just grind the bumps off and reconcrete the loose bits. ...
They've been welding the rail and patching the concrete repeatedly in that section over at least the last ten years!

I note that this stop and track is about the only part of the pre-2005 tram operation that has not been replaced or upgraded. Since 2005 the trams, track, overhead, substations and depot have all been renewed or extended. Since 2007 it has been possible to travel from City South to beyond Victoria Sq in the CBD.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1242
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 137 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3969 Post by rubberman » Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:04 pm

PD2/20 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:11 pm
rubberman wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:54 am

I am concerned about the relaying of that section though. Two reasons: first, in Melbourne, they'd just grind the bumps off and reconcrete the loose bits. ...
They've been welding the rail and patching the concrete repeatedly in that section over at least the last ten years!

I note that this stop and track is about the only part of the pre-2005 tram operation that has not been replaced or upgraded. Since 2005 the trams, track, overhead, substations and depot have all been renewed or extended. Since 2007 it has been possible to travel from City South to beyond Victoria Sq in the CBD.
The present track was laid to Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board standards in the late 1980s. That style of track has a fifty year life. So, whatever they are doing in terms of welding and patching clearly is not up to standard. In Melbourne, over the past ten years, they have been replacing this exact same sort of track laid in the 1960s. Fifty years after construction.

So, something is very very wrong if it's being replaced twenty years too soon.

The reason this is important is that if tram track only has a thirty year life, then it means the economics of trams becomes very dodgy. If you spend $10m on a stretch of track and have to pay it off over 30 years, that's $330,00/year. Whereas if you can pay it off over 50 years that's $200,000/year, almost 50% more. Add that to bridges unnecessarily strengthened and other expensive add-ons, I can see why a government might decide that trams are simply too expensive. Frankly, I'd rather they spent money wisely, so they could do other things with the savings.

Brucetiki
Legendary Member!
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:20 pm
Has thanked: 321 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3970 Post by Brucetiki » Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:43 pm

Great to see City South get a much needed upgraded.

BTW how is the minister pronouncing his name this week :lol:

PD2/20
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:32 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3971 Post by PD2/20 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:46 pm

rubberman wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:04 pm
The present track was laid to Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board standards in the late 1980s. That style of track has a fifty year life. So, whatever they are doing in terms of welding and patching clearly is not up to standard. In Melbourne, over the past ten years, they have been replacing this exact same sort of track laid in the 1960s. Fifty years after construction.

So, something is very very wrong if it's being replaced twenty years too soon.

The reason this is important is that if tram track only has a thirty year life, then it means the economics of trams becomes very dodgy. If you spend $10m on a stretch of track and have to pay it off over 30 years, that's $330,00/year. Whereas if you can pay it off over 50 years that's $200,000/year, almost 50% more. Add that to bridges unnecessarily strengthened and other expensive add-ons, I can see why a government might decide that trams are simply too expensive. Frankly, I'd rather they spent money wisely, so they could do other things with the savings.
Your reply raises a number of questions.

How is the 50 year life of the track arrived at? By extrapolation from engineering design principles? From empirical observation of track condition?

Was the track actually constructed to the MMTB standards specified?

Has all track in Melbourne constucted to the MMTB standards you instance lasted for 50 years?

What frequency of rail/track failures can be expected in the lifetime of well-constructed track?

Are the recent track problems that require the current 20 km/h in King William at locations that have been previously repaired or are they at new locations?

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3353
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3972 Post by Waewick » Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:55 pm

Did you hear Leon on 5AA say that North Adelaide tram extension is a goer?

Be interesting if we hear anything

citywatcher
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:51 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3973 Post by citywatcher » Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:23 pm

Nort wrote:
citywatcher wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:12 pm
Nort wrote: It begins.
Not comparing like for like and for $17m ?

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk
These complaints about how tram works will cause traffic problems are entirely different to complaints about how tram works a few hundred meters away on the same street will cause traffic problems!

I'll bite though - what do you think would be a reasonable cost to carry out the necessary tramline and stop works, and if you dispute they are necessary why do you think this stop doesn't need to meet the legal access requirements?
Are the requirements being currently met

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk


rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1242
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 137 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3974 Post by rubberman » Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:25 pm

PD2/20 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:46 pm
rubberman wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:04 pm
The present track was laid to Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board standards in the late 1980s. That style of track has a fifty year life. So, whatever they are doing in terms of welding and patching clearly is not up to standard. In Melbourne, over the past ten years, they have been replacing this exact same sort of track laid in the 1960s. Fifty years after construction.

So, something is very very wrong if it's being replaced twenty years too soon.

The reason this is important is that if tram track only has a thirty year life, then it means the economics of trams becomes very dodgy. If you spend $10m on a stretch of track and have to pay it off over 30 years, that's $330,00/year. Whereas if you can pay it off over 50 years that's $200,000/year, almost 50% more. Add that to bridges unnecessarily strengthened and other expensive add-ons, I can see why a government might decide that trams are simply too expensive. Frankly, I'd rather they spent money wisely, so they could do other things with the savings.
Your reply raises a number of questions.

How is the 50 year life of the track arrived at? By extrapolation from engineering design principles? From empirical observation of track condition?

Was the track actually constructed to the MMTB standards specified?

Has all track in Melbourne constucted to the MMTB standards you instance lasted for 50 years?

What frequency of rail/track failures can be expected in the lifetime of well-constructed track?

Are the recent track problems that require the current 20 km/h in King William at locations that have been previously repaired or are they at new locations?
The fifty year life is the time from construction in the 1960s up to the observed recent replacement program in Melbourne.

I recall the construction at the time, and yes I believe the construction was to MMTB Standards. (I am a civil engineer, although I am now relying on a thirty year old memory).

The question of how long it has lasted is hard to answer, since the MMTB and latterly Yarra Trams has used a grind, weld, concrete cut and mortar pack, technique to keep the track in service. My impression is that it's about the thirty year mark they have to seriously start on the maintenance, and it's more a question of the economics of increased maintenance vs replacement cost by 50 years. So, the reason for my raising this is that given a similar starting point and construction, and given that the MMTB/Yarra Trams are using repair after 30 years, why is it so different here? Could a decent program of maintenance prolong the life by another 20 years?

As far as I am aware, the failures form a typical "bathtub" curve. I don’t know the exact numbers. My point though, is that a competent interstate authority, using the same materials, and with similar structural loads and perhaps a higher tram service frequency has crunched all the numbers you mentioned and come up with a different answer. Given that YT have had a lot more experience, you'd hope that DPTI would be able to explain the difference. Certainly, that's the question a competent Minister would ask...and a prudent Departmental Head would have prepared an answer for. There's not much leakage from here, but imagine if a Ministerial advisor were to scan such pages for ideas for their Minister, would the head of DPTI be prepared to answer?

arki
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:35 am
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3975 Post by arki » Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:39 pm

SBD wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:01 am
arki wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:17 am
kymbosa wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:40 am
Oh no to side platforms. This slows the trams even more.

The current set up at city south allows a better flow for the trams through the lights. While red the boarding takes place, than on green the tram heads off.

The issues with this set up is that a tram travelling north now stops at the lights, travels across the intersection to stop again,
This isn't true with proper signal synchronisation. For example the stop at Pirie St is right after a set of signals if heading north, but you will find a tram rarely gets stopped here. You know it is synchronised with the tram because the lights change to red almost immediately after a tram crosses.
The Pirie Street stop has a single centre island platform for trams in both directions. The current City South layout has separate centre platforms for each direction...
I know...

My point is that with proper signaling, further delay caused by red lights is a non issue.
PD2/20 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:26 am
Arki, Pirie St must be then be one of the few junctions where trams are not subject to traffic light delays. It suggests that the Franklin St and Pirie St lights are reasonably synchronised, rather than trams getting pre-emptive priority at lights.
I only speak anecdotally, but my experience is that heading north, trams tend to get caught at Vic Sq before crossing Wakefield St (this is fine as they are parked at the stop anyway), then a green signal takes the tram right through to Pirie St.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests