News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4111 Post by rubberman » Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:43 am

Bob wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:18 am
I got the information third hand from a source who was present when Steven Marshall made the comment along the lines of ‘its makes sense to extend the tram to Adelaide Oval’. I am just the messenger. As I did not hear it directly myself, I treat this as a 'rumour'.

I interpreted this as being in association with a successful CW games bid, but on reflection maybe this is to support the AO hotel? Crazy thought I know, but anything is possible in regards to the questionable dealings in regards to the AO hotel.

There is a lot of speculation floating around recently in regards to the tram extension north, either to AO or to NA, I would not be surprised if we see some sort of infrastructure position statement by the end of 2019 on what the long term plan is regarding this route. We will have to wait and see. Originally I did think we would have to wait until the last year of the Liberal Party term to get an announcement, but I think something may be coming sooner now, however that is just my gut feel.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if information is being trickled out to test the waters, as the tram extension is one of the Top 10 infrastructure projects being reviewed this year by the new Infrastructure SA team. Who knows how far that process is advanced? Anyone's guess, but the CW games bid would have added urgency into the review I would have thought. If you want Federal funding under the CW games proviso, best to have your infrastructure required plans up to speed when you put your final bid forward, I would have thought.

Lets see what happens.
The tram project in the Infrastructure SA list is at number 4, and is: "An extension of tram services in the CBD".

That implies Citylink rather than the line to North Adelaide.

Not that this means much, rather that the extension past the Adelaide Oval is probably a separate project, possibly linked to the Commonwealth Games as suggested previously. Plus, of course when governments are developing projects, many options are floated as thought bubbles and most are discarded. This may be one such thought bubble. Oh, and the Infrastructure list refers to a 20 year timeframe. So even if it's supported, it might be 2039 before it happens.

Like for all rumours, I agree with bob...wait and see.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 302 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4112 Post by SBD » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:37 pm

The next tram service extension needs to be big enough to absorb the costs associated with a new/expanded depot and more vehicles to operate it. Those costs are too much to be absorbed in a plan to just provide a daily/peak hour service to the existing Elder Park stop. If the King William Road bridge needs to be strengthened (I am not buying into whether either engineering standards or trams have changed since the 1950s), that is another "hidden cost" that has to be amortised as part of a larger project.

Overall, look for an appropriate site for a new tram depot, then the next project has to be big enough to provide a new depot, tracks to/past it, and enough trams to operate peak hour services on that new line.

User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4113 Post by 1NEEDS2POST » Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:18 pm

A couple of times it has been raised that the Glengowrie depot is at full capacity. Next to the depot to the east is a vacant block of land. Does DPTI own it? I don't see the need for a new depot if they can expand onto that vacant block of land.

Bob
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:16 pm
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4114 Post by Bob » Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:30 pm

rubberman wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:43 am
Bob wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:18 am
I got the information third hand from a source who was present when Steven Marshall made the comment along the lines of ‘its makes sense to extend the tram to Adelaide Oval’. I am just the messenger. As I did not hear it directly myself, I treat this as a 'rumour'.

I interpreted this as being in association with a successful CW games bid, but on reflection maybe this is to support the AO hotel? Crazy thought I know, but anything is possible in regards to the questionable dealings in regards to the AO hotel.

There is a lot of speculation floating around recently in regards to the tram extension north, either to AO or to NA, I would not be surprised if we see some sort of infrastructure position statement by the end of 2019 on what the long term plan is regarding this route. We will have to wait and see. Originally I did think we would have to wait until the last year of the Liberal Party term to get an announcement, but I think something may be coming sooner now, however that is just my gut feel.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if information is being trickled out to test the waters, as the tram extension is one of the Top 10 infrastructure projects being reviewed this year by the new Infrastructure SA team. Who knows how far that process is advanced? Anyone's guess, but the CW games bid would have added urgency into the review I would have thought. If you want Federal funding under the CW games proviso, best to have your infrastructure required plans up to speed when you put your final bid forward, I would have thought.

Lets see what happens.
The tram project in the Infrastructure SA list is at number 4, and is: "An extension of tram services in the CBD".

That implies Citylink rather than the line to North Adelaide.

Not that this means much, rather that the extension past the Adelaide Oval is probably a separate project, possibly linked to the Commonwealth Games as suggested previously. Plus, of course when governments are developing projects, many options are floated as thought bubbles and most are discarded. This may be one such thought bubble. Oh, and the Infrastructure list refers to a 20 year timeframe. So even if it's supported, it might be 2039 before it happens.

Like for all rumours, I agree with bob...wait and see.
To clear this up - the CBD tram extension specified on the Top 10 list, as directed by the State Liberal Party to the new Infrastructure SA team, covers all potential tram extensions within the City of Adelaide, i.e. within the parklands perimeter covering both Adelaide & North Adelaide.
This part I am confident on.
Maybe their wording of the items could have been more accurate and be updated, but that was in the heat of their election process.

adelaide transport
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4115 Post by adelaide transport » Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:34 pm

The land next to Glengowrie Depot is owned by SAJC.

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 905
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4116 Post by Goodsy » Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:46 pm

Depots need to be close to the lines they serve to reduce empty running

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4117 Post by rubberman » Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:56 pm

SBD wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:37 pm
The next tram service extension needs to be big enough to absorb the costs associated with a new/expanded depot and more vehicles to operate it. Those costs are too much to be absorbed in a plan to just provide a daily/peak hour service to the existing Elder Park stop. If the King William Road bridge needs to be strengthened (I am not buying into whether either engineering standards or trams have changed since the 1950s), that is another "hidden cost" that has to be amortised as part of a larger project.

Overall, look for an appropriate site for a new tram depot, then the next project has to be big enough to provide a new depot, tracks to/past it, and enough trams to operate peak hour services on that new line.
The issue with the bridge boils down to this: the economics of tram extensions is often hard to justify. Unless the extension to North Adelaide is economic, the Liberal Government has every right to can it, and most voters would applaud. So, adding $20-30million to the cost may well kill the extension.

Personally, if the extension is uneconomic, then the Government is doing the right thing if it shelves the project. Do we really want to give the government a ready made reason for abandoning this? If the upgrade is really necessary, we should face the possibility that there will be no tram extension to North Adelaide.

It would be really sad if the tram to North Adelaide never went ahead because it would have involved an unnecessary bridge upgrade.

User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4118 Post by 1NEEDS2POST » Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:31 pm

rubberman wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:56 pm
SBD wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:37 pm
The next tram service extension needs to be big enough to absorb the costs associated with a new/expanded depot and more vehicles to operate it. Those costs are too much to be absorbed in a plan to just provide a daily/peak hour service to the existing Elder Park stop. If the King William Road bridge needs to be strengthened (I am not buying into whether either engineering standards or trams have changed since the 1950s), that is another "hidden cost" that has to be amortised as part of a larger project.

Overall, look for an appropriate site for a new tram depot, then the next project has to be big enough to provide a new depot, tracks to/past it, and enough trams to operate peak hour services on that new line.
The issue with the bridge boils down to this: the economics of tram extensions is often hard to justify. Unless the extension to North Adelaide is economic, the Liberal Government has every right to can it, and most voters would applaud. So, adding $20-30million to the cost may well kill the extension.

Personally, if the extension is uneconomic, then the Government is doing the right thing if it shelves the project. Do we really want to give the government a ready made reason for abandoning this? If the upgrade is really necessary, we should face the possibility that there will be no tram extension to North Adelaide.

It would be really sad if the tram to North Adelaide never went ahead because it would have involved an unnecessary bridge upgrade.
Even if it does need upgrading, how do we know the cost is realistic and not an inflated figure? $30 million is a lot for unknown upgrades.

Eurostar
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4119 Post by Eurostar » Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:20 pm

A tramline should go to Walkerville too via Melbourne Street. The former government owned carpark behind the Woolworths complex would be ideal for a tram depot.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4120 Post by rubberman » Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:31 am

1NEEDS2POST wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:31 pm
rubberman wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:56 pm
SBD wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:37 pm
The next tram service extension needs to be big enough to absorb the costs associated with a new/expanded depot and more vehicles to operate it. Those costs are too much to be absorbed in a plan to just provide a daily/peak hour service to the existing Elder Park stop. If the King William Road bridge needs to be strengthened (I am not buying into whether either engineering standards or trams have changed since the 1950s), that is another "hidden cost" that has to be amortised as part of a larger project.

Overall, look for an appropriate site for a new tram depot, then the next project has to be big enough to provide a new depot, tracks to/past it, and enough trams to operate peak hour services on that new line.
The issue with the bridge boils down to this: the economics of tram extensions is often hard to justify. Unless the extension to North Adelaide is economic, the Liberal Government has every right to can it, and most voters would applaud. So, adding $20-30million to the cost may well kill the extension.

Personally, if the extension is uneconomic, then the Government is doing the right thing if it shelves the project. Do we really want to give the government a ready made reason for abandoning this? If the upgrade is really necessary, we should face the possibility that there will be no tram extension to North Adelaide.

It would be really sad if the tram to North Adelaide never went ahead because it would have involved an unnecessary bridge upgrade.
Even if it does need upgrading, how do we know the cost is realistic and not an inflated figure? $30 million is a lot for unknown upgrades.
Yes. One of the sneaky ways of killing a project is to load a lot of unnecessary costs onto it, and then say "Aw shucks. It's too expensive", and it would be irresponsible to proceed." This can be done by politicians before an election to get votes. "Hey look, we'll put in a right turn and look at a tram to North Adelaide." Then once in, it's "Aw shucks. It's too expensive". Or, it can be done by Government agencies deliberately inflating costs so that the politicians will look irresponsible if they go ahead.

This is disappointing to people who want to see tram extensions, and get their hopes up when the high costs kill the schemes.

When I see gold plating and unnecessary expenditure, or expenditure on items with big question marks, I see project killers. Plus, of course, if projects cost less per kilometer, we could have more kilometres. I'd be willing to suggest that with what we've spent already, we could already have a tram to North Adelaide.

normh
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4121 Post by normh » Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:28 pm

SBD wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:37 pm
The next tram service extension needs to be big enough to absorb the costs associated with a new/expanded depot and more vehicles to operate it. Those costs are too much to be absorbed in a plan to just provide a daily/peak hour service to the existing Elder Park stop. If the King William Road bridge needs to be strengthened (I am not buying into whether either engineering standards or trams have changed since the 1950s), that is another "hidden cost" that has to be amortised as part of a larger project.

Overall, look for an appropriate site for a new tram depot, then the next project has to be big enough to provide a new depot, tracks to/past it, and enough trams to operate peak hour services on that new line.
I think the perfect place for the new tram depot is on Port Road in the Coke a Cola site which closed/closing, lots of space, and right on the line.

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1334
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 251 times
Been thanked: 283 times
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4122 Post by ChillyPhilly » Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:18 pm

normh wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:28 pm
SBD wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:37 pm
The next tram service extension needs to be big enough to absorb the costs associated with a new/expanded depot and more vehicles to operate it. Those costs are too much to be absorbed in a plan to just provide a daily/peak hour service to the existing Elder Park stop. If the King William Road bridge needs to be strengthened (I am not buying into whether either engineering standards or trams have changed since the 1950s), that is another "hidden cost" that has to be amortised as part of a larger project.

Overall, look for an appropriate site for a new tram depot, then the next project has to be big enough to provide a new depot, tracks to/past it, and enough trams to operate peak hour services on that new line.
I think the perfect place for the new tram depot is on Port Road in the Coke a Cola site which closed/closing, lots of space, and right on the line.
Somewhere around there would be good, but most of that stretch of Port Road is reserved for higher-density residential development.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4123 Post by 1NEEDS2POST » Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:21 pm

normh wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:28 pm
SBD wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:37 pm
The next tram service extension needs to be big enough to absorb the costs associated with a new/expanded depot and more vehicles to operate it. Those costs are too much to be absorbed in a plan to just provide a daily/peak hour service to the existing Elder Park stop. If the King William Road bridge needs to be strengthened (I am not buying into whether either engineering standards or trams have changed since the 1950s), that is another "hidden cost" that has to be amortised as part of a larger project.

Overall, look for an appropriate site for a new tram depot, then the next project has to be big enough to provide a new depot, tracks to/past it, and enough trams to operate peak hour services on that new line.
I think the perfect place for the new tram depot is on Port Road in the Coke a Cola site which closed/closing, lots of space, and right on the line.
If Hindmarsh stadium moves into the city, then that might be another large vacant lot in the area, suitable for a tram depot.

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 302 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4124 Post by SBD » Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:13 pm

I'm not sure what is still being used at Islington Works, nor who owns it.

A possibility might be to build the tram all the way up O'COnnell Street and Prospect Road to Regency Road, then down to an interchange at a revamped Islington Station, then follow the unused access track under the bridge and behind Bunnings to a tram depot in part of the former railway workshops.

User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4125 Post by 1NEEDS2POST » Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:18 pm

SBD wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:13 pm
I'm not sure what is still being used at Islington Works, nor who owns it.

A possibility might be to build the tram all the way up O'COnnell Street and Prospect Road to Regency Road, then down to an interchange at a revamped Islington Station, then follow the unused access track under the bridge and behind Bunnings to a tram depot in part of the former railway workshops.
The broad gauge side is completely disused. I think Genesee & Wyoming owns it. It could easily be transformed into a new tram depot.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aaronjameslange and 6 guests