Sensational-Adelaide.com

dbl96 wrote:
Just out of interest, where is all this speculation about the intersection only being constructed in part coming from? All the information released by the government to this point would seem to indicate that there is going to be a full intersection at KWS/NT, and that allowing for the construction of such an intersection is the primary reason why the line is being extended to the Festival Centre at this point in time.

I've been wondering the same thing about this speculation.

timtam20292 wrote:

dbl96 wrote:
Just out of interest, where is all this speculation about the intersection only being constructed in part coming from? All the information released by the government to this point would seem to indicate that there is going to be a full intersection at KWS/NT, and that allowing for the construction of such an intersection is the primary reason why the line is being extended to the Festival Centre at this point in time.

I've been wondering the same thing about this speculation.

I spoke directly to one of the DPTI project managers at the information stall they had in Rundle Mall last week. I asked him about the Grand Union Junction shown on the plan and asked him if that would definitely be implemented. He said no and that “some take on a half union will be the likely outcome due to budget constraints”. I presume Norman had a similar conversation, although it appears we were told slightly different things about what parts of the junction would and wouldn’t be implemented.

Either way the guy I spoke to sounded confident that the full junction was not on the cards.

Well they better stick to their promise of not digging up the intersection twice.

Llessur2002 wrote:

timtam20292 wrote:

dbl96 wrote:
Just out of interest, where is all this speculation about the intersection only being constructed in part coming from? All the information released by the government to this point would seem to indicate that there is going to be a full intersection at KWS/NT, and that allowing for the construction of such an intersection is the primary reason why the line is being extended to the Festival Centre at this point in time.

I've been wondering the same thing about this speculation.

I spoke directly to one of the DPTI project managers at the information stall they had in Rundle Mall last week. I asked him about the Grand Union Junction shown on the plan and asked him if that would definitely be implemented. He said no and that “some take on a half union will be the likely outcome due to budget constraints”. I presume Norman had a similar conversation, although it appears we were told slightly different things about what parts of the junction would and wouldn’t be implemented.

Either way the guy I spoke to sounded confident that the full junction was not on the cards.

Most tramway operators avoid complex junctions if they can. It's been pretty much worldwide operating experience that putting something in "just in case" is almost never done. So, it sounds like they are doing the right thing here.

rubberman wrote:Most tramway operators avoid complex junctions if they can. It's been pretty much worldwide operating experience that putting something in "just in case" is almost never done. So, it sounds like they are doing the right thing here.

Absolutely fine with me. The geeky child in me is a bit disappointed as I’d be very interested to see the full junction implemented but if it’s be deemed that for operational purposes a full junction’s not required (or won’t be for at least, say, 10-15 years) then I fully agree there’s no point in implementing one – I’d rather see the saved money spend elsewhere on the network.

I agree too.

I'm all in favour of more Citadis trams. It's a yes from me.

Bearing in mind I know very little about the technical differences between different tram models - why are the Citadis trams deemed outdated by some? What is it that's so beneficial about the other models discussed earlier in this thread, or is it just the cost? As a regular passenger they seem light years ahead of the Flexitys.

An idiot's/layperson's guide to the available options would be appreciated.

Llessur2002 wrote:Bearing in mind I know very little about the technical differences between different tram models - why are the Citadis trams deemed outdated by some? What is it that's so beneficial about the other models discussed earlier in this thread, or is it just the cost? As a regular passenger they seem light years ahead of the Flexitys.

An idiot's/layperson's guide to the available options would be appreciated.

The layout is fine...good in fact.

However, they are basically a single truck tram, like Adelaide's "Bib and Bub" cars of 1909. Most systems in Australia and the US and UK abandoned that principle in the years after 1910.

The reason? Excessive track wear, rail corrugation (eg Rundle Mall stop), and tendency to rock and roll if track is not in tip top condition. This led to lower operational speeds on ballasted track, and noisy ride over corrugations, and early replacement of worn track.

The main problem is that on a curve, the whole superstructure turns sharply, whereas bogie cars turn the bogie, then the car. The extra force required translates to higher track wear. Similarly, the higher pitching back and forth starts the corrugations. Note that the corrugation at Rundle Mall is from 6 cars only. Imagine how it would be if all the cars were Citadis!

There used to be a collection of the Street Railway Journal on the Barr Smith Library where I idled my youth away. The journals of 1910-1920 were full of the single truck vs bogie car debate and lots of data to support it. Certainly, Sir William Goodman never countenanced single truckers for new vehicles when he could afford bogie cars. A nice modern layout can't change the physics that underpin single truck designs.

Part 2.

If you look at the Citadis as it enters a curve, because the wheels are waaaaay behind the front, when the wheels hit the curve, there's a lurch as the front of the tram gets swung around. That's a lot of force concentrated on a relatively small area of contact between wheel and rail.

The force cannot be eliminated, but the further forward the leading wheel is, and the less of the whole section that gets rotated initially, the less is the wear and tear on rails and tram body.

So, the minimum practical force configuration looks like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Škoda_15_T

You can see typical layouts here which are as good as the Citadis, with the advantage that since this tram has very few wheel intrusions, layouts can mimic the Citadis, or variations of that as needed.

The price of that Škoda? $3.6m. However, that's a single ended version.

Want something a little cheaper, but with bogies set back somewhat? Swiss designed, Ukranian built (under Swiss management)

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/li ... adler.html
http://www.stadlerrail.com/en/products/tango/
Note: the model for Ostrava is the Metelitsa in the stdler page above.

The price? $1.8m for the single ended version.

And yet from street level, through the eyes of a passenger, the multiple doors, sleeker style and better internal layout make the ex-Spanish vehicles look more recent.

I think they should rip out all the seats and just have London Tube style benches along the walls, with standing area in the middle. Also more doors.

Cheers rubberman - makes a lot of sense.

I remain hopeful that at some point in time there will be a 'mass' expansion of the system (e.g. the feds will fund the city loop and airport line - a pipe dream I know, unless we secure the Commonwealth Games) which would require a bulk order of new trams. Before then it would be good to identify one or two possible contenders and run for a few years to establish which works best for us.

Or the network will continue to be put together piecemeal, only when state Labor are in power and we'll end up with a hotchpotch of technology which doesn't run optimally.

monotonehell wrote:And yet from street level, through the eyes of a passenger, the multiple doors, sleeker style and better internal layout make the ex-Spanish vehicles look more recent.

I think they should rip out all the seats and just have London Tube style benches along the walls, with standing area in the middle. Also more doors.

The Citadis layout, imho, is bettter than the Flexity. It's the track wear and poorer ride on curved and ballast track that's the problem. Those corrugations (on the Rundle Mall stop, for example), are from six cars. Similarly for the curve wear starting to show on the North Terrace curves. Imagine a fleet of them!

The Škoda trams I linked to previously have more doors and a totally flat floor within each articulated section. So, if you like the Citadis layout, it can be replicated. Additionally, the Škoda is modular, so you could add an extra section just for standees during the peak. Of course, you'd have to extend the platforms somewhat.

I also forgot to mention the Pesa Twist, which falls midway in cost and quality between the Swiss designed Stadler Metelica and the Škoda 15T

http://www.pesa.pl/please-translate-in- ... ams/twist/

It's still possible to buy new trams of the Citadis type from various manufacturers - there's always someone who wants cheap, and that's fair enough too! However, usually, they are cheaper than the rest. My beef with Adelaide's buying Citadis is that instead of being cheaper than the Škoda or Pesa, they are more expensive. What Adelaide is doing is buying a Toyota Yaris, but paying a BMW 5 price. Nothing wrong with a Yaris, but if anyone paid over $50k for one, you'd surely have a "hang on!" moment. It's like paying more for Turnbull's NBN than doing fttp. Oh, hang on!

Also re the "second hand trams" we are getting, wouldn't it also be cheaper to operate them from a maintenance perspective?
We have two types of trams, that's two types of components and hours/maintenance schedules/routines etc.
Adding potentially a third type/class would increase operating costs.
Maybe I'm wrong, I'm thinking of it from a military perspective with equipment.

rev wrote:Also re the "second hand trams" we are getting, wouldn't it also be cheaper to operate them from a maintenance perspective?
We have two types of trams, that's two types of components and hours/maintenance schedules/routines etc.
Adding potentially a third type/class would increase operating costs.
Maybe I'm wrong, I'm thinking of it from a military perspective with equipment.

The comparison to the military procurement is the correct one to make. The cost of getting a system in place to deal with a large order will always be cheaper and easier to deal with, especially when it comes to spare parts.