News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1516
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3976 Post by Patrick_27 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:19 pm

Waewick wrote:
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
The Feds under Turnbull funded up to $500m for tram works in Adelaide, Marshall and Lucas have already tried to divert the funds elsewhere but it's an all or nothing arrangement I believe. I think North Adelaide is vital to giving the Elder Park extension some short-term viability (by short-term, I mean until the Festival Plaza and such are complete). And it makes perfect sense for so many reasons: for one, O'Connell Street is on the decline, it frees up a certain number of buses by changing and removing some services, it better connects Adelaide Oval with the south side of the Torrens (also can be said for Memorial Drive given the recent news of the upgrade), and it also services whatever ends up at 88 O'Connell Street. It's a no brainer, and it actually makes more sense than the existing extension down North Terrace.

User avatar
Llessur2002
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: West Croydon
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 572 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3977 Post by Llessur2002 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:02 pm

TRAMS WILL BE RUNNING UP POPULAR EATING STRIP PRETTY SOON, SAYS LEON BYNER

A plan to extend the tram network into North Adelaide is close to finalised, reports FIVEaa’s Leon Byner.
“It is my understanding that we are well on the way for trams going up O’Connell,” Leon said on Thursday. “That’s what I’ve been told today.”

“The businesses in O’Connell St have been doing it tough. We’ve had a hotel that’s shut… we’ve had a number of cafes and restaurants -- which were at one stage busy as -- shutting.

“That area of town needs a real shot in the arm. We’ll keep you posted.”

The extension will also include a “park and ride” zone in North Adelaide, said Leon.

Asked whether the extension would happen “fairly soon”, Transport Minister Stephan Knoll said:

“That is something that we said we’d look at and it’s something that Infrastructure South Australia, which is rapidly getting up and going at the moment, will be looking at.

“We’ve now got the board in place. I understand the staff have now been seconded and also we’ve actually got tenders going out for some of the work that ISA needs to do.

“They’ll look at that idea and where it’s ranked against other priorities.”
From:https://www.fiveaa.com.au/shows/leon-by ... Leon-Byner

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

#3978 Post by Nort » Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:58 pm

rubberman wrote:
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?
I would be curious also about the economies of scale and if the extensive Melbourne tram network makes permanent maintenance crews a thing such that repairs are fairly cheap and straightforward. Given the lesser amount of track in Adelaide I imagine any repairs need more preparation that would make them more expensive comparatively.

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

#3979 Post by citywatcher » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:25 pm

It was the Melb gangs that built the original extension

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

#3980 Post by rubberman » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:37 pm

Nort wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:58 pm
rubberman wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:25 pm
PD2/20 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:46 pm

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?
I would be curious also about the economies of scale and if the extensive Melbourne tram network makes permanent maintenance crews a thing such that repairs are fairly cheap and straightforward. Given the lesser amount of track in Adelaide I imagine any repairs need more preparation that would make them more expensive comparatively.
The Adelaide Metro rail maintenance guys would have the skills to grind out corrugations and repair welds. Cutting out the cracked concrete and repacking with stiff grout under the rails could be done by local contractors.

As a slight aside, there ars corrugations by most of the stops in King William Street North. I'm not sure if Adelaide Metro even recognises them as a problem.

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: City
Has thanked: 377 times
Been thanked: 115 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3981 Post by SRW » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:43 pm

Llessur2002 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:02 pm
TRAMS WILL BE RUNNING UP POPULAR EATING STRIP PRETTY SOON, SAYS LEON BYNER

A plan to extend the tram network into North Adelaide is close to finalised, reports FIVEaa’s Leon Byner.
“It is my understanding that we are well on the way for trams going up O’Connell,” Leon said on Thursday. “That’s what I’ve been told today.”

“The businesses in O’Connell St have been doing it tough. We’ve had a hotel that’s shut… we’ve had a number of cafes and restaurants -- which were at one stage busy as -- shutting.

“That area of town needs a real shot in the arm. We’ll keep you posted.”

The extension will also include a “park and ride” zone in North Adelaide, said Leon.

Asked whether the extension would happen “fairly soon”, Transport Minister Stephan Knoll said:

“That is something that we said we’d look at and it’s something that Infrastructure South Australia, which is rapidly getting up and going at the moment, will be looking at.

“We’ve now got the board in place. I understand the staff have now been seconded and also we’ve actually got tenders going out for some of the work that ISA needs to do.

“They’ll look at that idea and where it’s ranked against other priorities.”
From:https://www.fiveaa.com.au/shows/leon-by ... Leon-Byner
A park and ride in North Adelaide, really? Two thoughts: WHY! And it better not be on the Lecornu land for which we just paid $35 million.

Fingers crossed the extension is for real though
Keep Adelaide Weird

how good is he
Legendary Member!
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:26 am
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3982 Post by how good is he » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:09 am

A park and ride along the route could work at 88 O’Connell St with say 2-3 floors underground and/or at the Adelaide Aquatic Centre, if it will go that far?

kymbosa
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:39 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3983 Post by kymbosa » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:22 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.
That’s rubbish. In a normal week, 4 out of 5 trams get stopped at the Pirie St lights when heading North.

The lights are synchronised at all. It takes 25mins to travel across town and 25mins to travel to Glenelg from South Tec stop, this is due to the amount of stopping at red lights.

I am all for trams, but the stops needed to be better throughout.

Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1516
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3984 Post by Patrick_27 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:46 pm

how good is he wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:09 am
A park and ride along the route could work at 88 O’Connell St with say 2-3 floors underground and/or at the Adelaide Aquatic Centre, if it will go that far?
The Adelaide Aquatic Centre car-park is too small as it is, let's not put more unnecessary pressure on it, hey?

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

#3985 Post by rubberman » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:09 pm

My observation of the Pirie St lights is that the normal cycle is: Pedestrians cross, then East-West for a short period, then North-South for a much longer period.

If a tram travelling North approaches the lights and they are red then the cycle above changes: If the peds are crossing, then the next green is North-South, allowing the tram to go through for an extremely short period, maybe five or six seconds, then the lights change to East-West as normal. So, there's definitely an interaction with the tram that gives it some priority.

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

#3986 Post by rubberman » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:16 pm

Patrick_27 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:46 pm
how good is he wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:09 am
A park and ride along the route could work at 88 O’Connell St with say 2-3 floors underground and/or at the Adelaide Aquatic Centre, if it will go that far?
The Adelaide Aquatic Centre car-park is too small as it is, let's not put more unnecessary pressure on it, hey?
If there's a tram down O'Connell Street, I'm not sure how to avoid that parking problem. The loss of a couple of lanes will cause congestion, so some people will park and ride from the terminus just to avoid traffic. I'm not advocating for the AC becoming a park and ride, rather it seems that's what will happen to it once the tram takes two lanes off O'Connell Street. Either that or build a monster park somewhere like the Scotty's corner, so that the parking demand is there rather than the AC.

User avatar
PeFe
Legendary Member!
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:47 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3987 Post by PeFe » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:25 pm

A park'n'ride in North Adelaide ?

Absolutely stupid idea.....park'n'rides belong 20 kms out in suburbia, otherwise you just get the same problems as if the park'n'ride doesn't exist, 20 kms of traffic funneling into one small area looking for a car park.....or looking to get into a singular car park.

Have some people learnt no lessons in public transport/ car parking policies since the 1960's?

how good is he
Legendary Member!
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:26 am
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3988 Post by how good is he » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:35 pm

With the aquatic centre it wouldn't be using the existing carpark but something built like the Entertainment Centre Park and ride. I think it would help activate North Adelaide and service AO, Festival theatre etc. I mean the aim would be to have a free tram from there to induce people to use it also. I doubt the cost to extend the tram to say Scotty's Corner being justified. I mean what would that cost, $400m- $500m?

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1806
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#3989 Post by claybro » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:37 pm

Park and rides are more suited to heavy rail, and then only in middle to outer suburbs. We should not under any circumstance be advocating for park and ride so close to the CBD. In addition, trams/ light rail are not really suitable to park and ride commuter systems due to their lower capacity and speed than heavy rail. If the light rail corridor is properly planned, the stations should link to higher density, walkable neighbourhoods or "urban villages", reducing the need for a car at all. Part of the problem with getting Adelink off the ground, has been the lack of vision for urbanisation of our inner suburbs. Encouraging single occupant cars to drive to the inner suburbs is not the way to encourage use and justify a light rail development. At the very least, the former state government seemed to be on the right track with all of this, but the implementation was woeful. Given this, the North Adelaide extension would seem to be the only viable option now, as North Adelaide is already reasonably good density, has some new developments in the pipeline, and the beginnings are already there on King William Road.

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

#3990 Post by rubberman » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:19 pm

claybro wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:37 pm
Park and rides are more suited to heavy rail, and then only in middle to outer suburbs. We should not under any circumstance be advocating for park and ride so close to the CBD. In addition, trams/ light rail are not really suitable to park and ride commuter systems due to their lower capacity and speed than heavy rail. If the light rail corridor is properly planned, the stations should link to higher density, walkable neighbourhoods or "urban villages", reducing the need for a car at all. Part of the problem with getting Adelink off the ground, has been the lack of vision for urbanisation of our inner suburbs. Encouraging single occupant cars to drive to the inner suburbs is not the way to encourage use and justify a light rail development. At the very least, the former state government seemed to be on the right track with all of this, but the implementation was woeful. Given this, the North Adelaide extension would seem to be the only viable option now, as North Adelaide is already reasonably good density, has some new developments in the pipeline, and the beginnings are already there on King William Road.
I agree largely. However, the problem is that if there's a tram down O'Connell Street, it presents a restriction on bus and car traffic thereby increasing congestion at that point. If there's no parking, the tram just becomes a local service for North Adelaide. Nice for the residents, but hardly practical since a tram service must carry far more than local traffic to be viable. Point is, how do you get enough passengers onto the tram unless there's a parking spot nearby?

So yes, P&R should be for rail and further out, but a tram to North Adelaide without adequate patronage won't be viable. Local ridership from North Adelaide won't be enough, so where do we get the extra ridership required to make a tramline viable? Possibilities might be: terminate buses at North Adelaide, forcing passengers to transfer, or park and ride, or what?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests