News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
PD2/20
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:32 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4171 Post by PD2/20 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:52 pm

Waewick wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:38 pm
ChillyPhilly wrote:
Honey of a City wrote:Interesting that LeFevre Peninsula and light rail and merit all appear in the same sentence. Is there a glimmer of hope there?
Not with a Liberal Government. Sorry.
I guess that massive 6kms of tram over 16 years gives you hope with the other mob.Image

Full credit to Labor, they knew how to keep people dreaming.
In 16 years there was not only the 6km of route extensions, but complete replacement of trams, track, overhead, substations.

User avatar
gnrc_louis
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:04 pm
Location: Grange
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4172 Post by gnrc_louis » Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:06 am

claybro wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:42 pm
rubberman wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:37 pm
[quote=ChillyPhilly post_id=181931 time=<a href="tel:1561770148">1561770148</a> user_id=1971]
Honey of a City wrote:Interesting that LeFevre Peninsula and light rail and merit all appear in the same sentence. Is there a glimmer of hope there?
Not with a Liberal Government. Sorry.
Actually, converting the Port line...and maybe the Belair line to light rail...which would shaft the rail unions nicely, and be cheaper than replacing heavy rail vehicles and signalling on those lines is not that far fetched. In addition, an underground city loop using light rail connecting the Belair and Port lines underground would be cheaper than heavy rail Gawler/Seaford underground.

Shafting the rail unions and saving money? I think the Liberal Government would certainly look at it.
Agree with all of his Rubberman. However given the vocal heavy rail folk on here, I would say the public would be apoplectic if their heavy rail was taken away, even though by current patronage very few of them even use it.
[/quote]

1) Why celebrate "shafting" a union? Unions exist to look after workers, nothing wrong with a union working hard to get their members a good deal. Worth noting too, that according to the World Economic Forum this year "Australia ranks 22nd – fifth last in the OECD – on labour rights." Not exactly great.

2) How often do you use heavy rail in Adelaide - daily? weekly? monthly? I use it daily and I am sure many of the other pro heavy rail users on here use it regularly too.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4173 Post by rubberman » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:59 am

gnrc_louis wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:06 am
claybro wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:42 pm
rubberman wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:37 pm
[quote=ChillyPhilly post_id=181931 time=<a href="tel:1561770148">1561770148</a> user_id=1971]


Not with a Liberal Government. Sorry.
Actually, converting the Port line...and maybe the Belair line to light rail...which would shaft the rail unions nicely, and be cheaper than replacing heavy rail vehicles and signalling on those lines is not that far fetched. In addition, an underground city loop using light rail connecting the Belair and Port lines underground would be cheaper than heavy rail Gawler/Seaford underground.

Shafting the rail unions and saving money? I think the Liberal Government would certainly look at it.
Agree with all of his Rubberman. However given the vocal heavy rail folk on here, I would say the public would be apoplectic if their heavy rail was taken away, even though by current patronage very few of them even use it.
1) Why celebrate "shafting" a union? Unions exist to look after workers, nothing wrong with a union working hard to get their members a good deal. Worth noting too, that according to the World Economic Forum this year "Australia ranks 22nd – fifth last in the OECD – on labour rights." Not exactly great.

2) How often do you use heavy rail in Adelaide - daily? weekly? monthly? I use it daily and I am sure many of the other pro heavy rail users on here use it regularly too.
[/quote]

Hi,

I am not in any way celebrating or advocating unions being shafted. I was rather pointing out that the Liberal Party might see that as a good reason for removing heavy rail, rather than keeping it. I don't think the Liberal Party is interested in public transport that much, but they don't like unions even more.

As for regular use of rail, I suggest most people wouldn't care whether it's light rail or heavy rail, as long as it's reasonably comfortable and fast to where they want to go. With the relatively close stations on the Port Line, light rail/trams could match the speed of trains, plus be a lot cheaper to buy, and with almost no signalling other than a few crossings. Further, those Western suburbs generally don't vote Liberal. If the Liberals could replace the trains with something cheaper that does just as good a job, why wouldn't they look at it? If it shafts the unions as well, do you think that would make it more...or less attractive to a Liberal Government?

The other alternative, if people really wanted to keep trains would be to slash the number of stations so that trains could outpace trams...by a lot, to justify their higher cost. However, then it gets back to people screaming about losing their stations. Bottom line though, if heavy rail can't beat light rail for speed, then what's the argument for spending more money? Outside heavy rail enthusiasts, who is going to care?

User avatar
gnrc_louis
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:04 pm
Location: Grange
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4174 Post by gnrc_louis » Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:13 am

rubberman wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:59 am
Hi,

I am not in any way celebrating or advocating unions being shafted. I was rather pointing out that the Liberal Party might see that as a good reason for removing heavy rail, rather than keeping it. I don't think the Liberal Party is interested in public transport that much, but they don't like unions even more.

As for regular use of rail, I suggest most people wouldn't care whether it's light rail or heavy rail, as long as it's reasonably comfortable and fast to where they want to go. With the relatively close stations on the Port Line, light rail/trams could match the speed of trains, plus be a lot cheaper to buy, and with almost no signalling other than a few crossings. Further, those Western suburbs generally don't vote Liberal. If the Liberals could replace the trains with something cheaper that does just as good a job, why wouldn't they look at it? If it shafts the unions as well, do you think that would make it more...or less attractive to a Liberal Government?

The other alternative, if people really wanted to keep trains would be to slash the number of stations so that trains could outpace trams...by a lot, to justify their higher cost. However, then it gets back to people screaming about losing their stations. Bottom line though, if heavy rail can't beat light rail for speed, then what's the argument for spending more money? Outside heavy rail enthusiasts, who is going to care?
Apologies Rubberman, was actually replying to Claybro's post.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2019
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4175 Post by claybro » Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:26 am

gnrc_louis wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:06 am
claybro wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:42 pm
rubberman wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:37 pm
[quote=ChillyPhilly post_id=181931 time=<a href="tel:1561770148">1561770148</a> user_id=1971]


Not with a Liberal Government. Sorry.
Actually, converting the Port line...and maybe the Belair line to light rail...which would shaft the rail unions nicely, and be cheaper than replacing heavy rail vehicles and signalling on those lines is not that far fetched. In addition, an underground city loop using light rail connecting the Belair and Port lines underground would be cheaper than heavy rail Gawler/Seaford underground.

Shafting the rail unions and saving money? I think the Liberal Government would certainly look at it.
Agree with all of his Rubberman. However given the vocal heavy rail folk on here, I would say the public would be apoplectic if their heavy rail was taken away, even though by current patronage very few of them even use it.
1) Why celebrate "shafting" a union? Unions exist to look after workers, nothing wrong with a union working hard to get their members a good deal. Worth noting too, that according to the World Economic Forum this year "Australia ranks 22nd – fifth last in the OECD – on labour rights." Not exactly great.

2) How often do you use heavy rail in Adelaide - daily? weekly? monthly? I use it daily and I am sure many of the other pro heavy rail users on here use it regularly too.
[/quote]

Obviously I don't often use heavy rail in Adelaide. But on a visit earlier in the year, I used Glenelg tram for a trip to the beach, and the Grange train to visit my mum at Grange. Although the seats on the tram were less comfortable, the actual speed of the tram over the train was better, given it had many more stops and was MUCH busier. There were only a handful of people on the train on a weekday, compared to the tram which was almost full, and your post sums up exactly my point about people being upset about loosing their heavy rail when light rail can serve more destination, more stations at a similar speed for a fraction of the cost.

Eurostar
Legendary Member!
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4176 Post by Eurostar » Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:44 pm

I would like to see trams on King William Street in Hyde Park again

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4040
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 294 times
Been thanked: 420 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4177 Post by rev » Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:43 pm

PD2/20 wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:52 pm
Waewick wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:38 pm
ChillyPhilly wrote:
Not with a Liberal Government. Sorry.
I guess that massive 6kms of tram over 16 years gives you hope with the other mob.Image

Full credit to Labor, they knew how to keep people dreaming.
In 16 years there was not only the 6km of route extensions, but complete replacement of trams, track, overhead, substations.
16 years to do all that? What an achievement.
16 years is what it should have taken to build something like the AdeLINK plan.
King William/Nth Tce to Magil through Norwood is like a 7km route.
King William/Nth Tce to Grand Junction Road through Nth Adelaide/Prospect/Kilburn is 8km.
Short extension down King William road to Hyde Park is like 1km. To Colonel Light Gardens by Goodwood Road is like 4km.
Henley Square to West Tce where presumably part of a City loop would run is 9km, and about 1km for a run to the airport off Henley beach road.
Roughly 30km total. Too much to expect for that to be built in a decade and a half?

The Greek capital Athens built nearly 60km of tram lines between 2002 and this past April. And the red tape and bureaucracy that exists there makes any political hurdles we have here look like a picnic between two lovers. They also have the added pleasure of having to stop all work practically in every area they dig because it's an ancient city with literally countless artifacts and ruins lying beneath the surface. But they still managed to build 60km of tram lines. And work continued through one of the worst economic crisis in history. What's our excuse?

The truth is we are taken as mugs and fools by our politicians, because they know they can get away with it.
Labor strung us along for a decade and a half with pissant small extensions here and there and lots of talk and plans. Their last extension ended what, about 500m short of a major landmark that is filled with 40-50,000 people every weekend for half the year..not to mention cricket season?, occasionally a league and other major events held there.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4178 Post by rubberman » Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:31 pm

rev wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:43 pm
PD2/20 wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:52 pm
Waewick wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:38 pm
I guess that massive 6kms of tram over 16 years gives you hope with the other mob.Image

Full credit to Labor, they knew how to keep people dreaming.
In 16 years there was not only the 6km of route extensions, but complete replacement of trams, track, overhead, substations.
16 years to do all that? What an achievement.
16 years is what it should have taken to build something like the AdeLINK plan.
King William/Nth Tce to Magil through Norwood is like a 7km route.
King William/Nth Tce to Grand Junction Road through Nth Adelaide/Prospect/Kilburn is 8km.
Short extension down King William road to Hyde Park is like 1km. To Colonel Light Gardens by Goodwood Road is like 4km.
Henley Square to West Tce where presumably part of a City loop would run is 9km, and about 1km for a run to the airport off Henley beach road.
Roughly 30km total. Too much to expect for that to be built in a decade and a half?

The Greek capital Athens built nearly 60km of tram lines between 2002 and this past April. And the red tape and bureaucracy that exists there makes any political hurdles we have here look like a picnic between two lovers. They also have the added pleasure of having to stop all work practically in every area they dig because it's an ancient city with literally countless artifacts and ruins lying beneath the surface. But they still managed to build 60km of tram lines. And work continued through one of the worst economic crisis in history. What's our excuse?

The truth is we are taken as mugs and fools by our politicians, because they know they can get away with it.
Labor strung us along for a decade and a half with pissant small extensions here and there and lots of talk and plans. Their last extension ended what, about 500m short of a major landmark that is filled with 40-50,000 people every weekend for half the year..not to mention cricket season?, occasionally a league and other major events held there.

First, let me say there's plenty that the ALP could be criticised for in terms of tram system decisions. Buying Citadis, not sharing tram corridors with buses, nutty centre island platforms being some I have harped on...and on about. So plenty of waste and lost opportunity there.

However, State governments have to spread a relatively small amount of money over a lot of projects. Having spent billions on the rail system, there simply wasn't enough to spend on a major tram system without Federal funding. The Federal ALP and State ALP promised that funding, but they have both been voted out. Ok, so there was a plan to do exactly as you said, but the voters have spoken.

Now, of course the ALP could have spent less on the rail system, or on stadiums, or on the Torrens to Torrens, but then, someone else would be screaming about how they didn't do anything.

So, on the one hand you have a Federal and State ALP promising a system once both were in power so it could be funded, or, on the other hand you have a Coalition with almost no interest in trams or trains. Choose one. Oh, we did, that's right, when we had the chance, South Australia chose the Coalition.

No point in worrying for the next three years. And that's if the ALP thinks it's worth pursuing since it didn't win them power last time.

As for not going to Adelaide Oval. I have been bashing my head against a brick wall pointing out that there's a huge extra cost for that to upgrade the bridge, making it uneconomic. When I then point out that coupled H cars ran over it for decades, so why should there be an upgrade cost at all, people look blank. This idea that we should overpay hugely for no extra benefit makes trams uneconomic. Being uneconomic, means Liberals have a point when they question trams, and makes the ALP look irresponsible.

Perhaps the ALP both State and Federal should use the time in opposition to develop a more economic approach. Better trams, cheaper track, better utilisation of track, better technical knowledge of tram technology in the public sector design agencies would be a start.

Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4179 Post by Patrick_27 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:10 pm

Belair as light rail? The Glenelg line is 16 kms (including the Entertainment Centre extension) and feels like it takes forever to get from A to B. The Belair Line is 21km so that would be even worse, I really don't see how light rail is a viable option for that corridor when you factor in speed (and that's only comparing it with slower diesel/electric trains too). And the whole idea of building an underground tram loop, why? You could just as easily build one on the surface and for a fraction of the cost...

Spotto
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4180 Post by Spotto » Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:26 pm

rubberman wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:37 pm
an underground city loop using light rail connecting the Belair and Port lines underground would be cheaper than heavy rail Gawler/Seaford underground.
By the time you worry about the costs of planning permissions, hiring crews and actually digging the tunnels you might as well just dig a train tunnel instead. The Gawler-Seaford tunnel link will be necessary in the coming years, and we've already built a good portion of the trams above ground, easier to just continue the above ground loop instead of digging up what we've already built and moving it under. Keeps the trams more convenient for passengers to be above ground as well.

User avatar
gnrc_louis
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:04 pm
Location: Grange
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4181 Post by gnrc_louis » Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:28 pm

claybro wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:42 pm
Obviously I don't often use heavy rail in Adelaide. But on a visit earlier in the year, I used Glenelg tram for a trip to the beach, and the Grange train to visit my mum at Grange. Although the seats on the tram were less comfortable, the actual speed of the tram over the train was better, given it had many more stops and was MUCH busier. There were only a handful of people on the train on a weekday, compared to the tram which was almost full, and your post sums up exactly my point about people being upset about loosing their heavy rail when light rail can serve more destination, more stations at a similar speed for a fraction of the cost.
So you're basing your opinion on anecdotal evidence from two trips you took this year? :roll:
The Grange train takes 23-25 minutes to get into the city, the Outer Harbour line longer but still considerably faster than an equivalent bus. Light rail would surely extend both considerably, removing the time advantage they have over buses. So besides saving money, what do you gain? More patrons on public transport? Unlikely.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4182 Post by rubberman » Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:28 pm

Patrick_27 wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:10 pm
Belair as light rail? The Glenelg line is 16 kms (including the Entertainment Centre extension) and feels like it takes forever to get from A to B. The Belair Line is 21km so that would be even worse, I really don't see how light rail is a viable option for that corridor when you factor in speed (and that's only comparing it with slower diesel/electric trains too). And the whole idea of building an underground tram loop, why? You could just as easily build one on the surface and for a fraction of the cost...
That sort of gets to what I am saying about the various technical fails in the tram system: poor tram acquisition such as Citadis, nutty centre island platforms, failure to use joint bus and tram corridors. I could have added unnecessarily slow operation too. So, sure, you are right if you compare the present way things are done. I have repeatedly said that these things are obstacles to tram system extension, and certainly if it was proposed that the Belair line was replaced by trams like Citadis run like the line to Glenelg, it would be laughable. However, a tram such as a Škoda 15T? Quite another matter. Trams run like we do here, yeah slow. Trams run like the Dopravní Podnik in Prague? Quite another matter.

However, if you take my comments as a whole, you would see that I am talking about a line run using good modern practice. That's something quite different. Such a line could be faster and cheaper.

I am sure if we were to check the Advertiser in 1928 and 1929, before the conversion from heavy rail to trams, people were also saying it couldn't be done.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2019
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4183 Post by claybro » Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:38 pm

Not to mention comparing the current Glenelg tram to the Belair line is not possible, as the Glenelg tram has a multitude of stops over an equivalent distance on any stretch of the line. If the Glenelg tram had about half the amount of current stops, and was actually operated at its capable speed of 80 km/h, it would be a much better comparison.

User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4184 Post by 1NEEDS2POST » Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:29 pm

claybro wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:38 pm
Not to mention comparing the current Glenelg tram to the Belair line is not possible, as the Glenelg tram has a multitude of stops over an equivalent distance on any stretch of the line. If the Glenelg tram had about half the amount of current stops, and was actually operated at its capable speed of 80 km/h, it would be a much better comparison.
Meanwhile the Grange train travels at 90 km/h through large sections of its route. 3000 class railcars are designed for 130 km/h, you can't get a tram going that fast because of the wheel profiles.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4185 Post by rubberman » Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:57 pm

1NEEDS2POST wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:29 pm
claybro wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:38 pm
Not to mention comparing the current Glenelg tram to the Belair line is not possible, as the Glenelg tram has a multitude of stops over an equivalent distance on any stretch of the line. If the Glenelg tram had about half the amount of current stops, and was actually operated at its capable speed of 80 km/h, it would be a much better comparison.
Meanwhile the Grange train travels at 90 km/h through large sections of its route. 3000 class railcars are designed for 130 km/h, you can't get a tram going that fast because of the wheel profiles.
Yes. The Grange train averages 35kph. That's very close to what a modern tram could do. Now obviously "bib and bub" type Citadis can't do this. However, that's a point I have been repeating. Don't buy Citadis, or similar "bib and bub" trams, and you can do higher speeds on open ballast tracks. Bib and bubs run ok on fixed concrete track, but the minute they get up to speed on open ballast, they sway and rock dangerously. Use swivelling bogie trucks and the problem disappears. Melbourne has Citadis, and in places like Royal Park Zoo, where it's open ballast, they have a speed limit.

Buy modern trams, run them as modern systems do, and there's zero reason they couldn't match trains to Grange as it stands.

Now, of course, if the number of stations on the Grange line were to be reduced so that the average speeds got up to say, 70kph, and shave 10 mins of the schedule, that would be entirely different. That sort of saving could induce switching from cars to trains. I say that because the latest congestion report from the RAA shows car average speeds of 55+ kph. At the moment, the train is 35kph plus walking. Get to 70kph by train,and maybe there's a chance. If the present station spacing is sacrosanct, then modern trams can do the same job if run correctly and are cheaper. Either better (and eliminate stations) or cheaper (and run trams). One or the other.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest