Sensational-Adelaide.com

adelaide transport wrote:DPTI have purchased another 3 (secondhand)Citadis 302 LRV's from Madrid(exactly the same as our existing 200 fleet. This will bring the number of Citadis to 9.
The trams are due in late September.DTPI have called tenders for shipment from Madrid to Adelaide.

Forgot about the trams

Here is what I understood the grand junction could look like:

Not a fan of that.

I'm wondering what the point of one stop north is

citywatcher wrote:I'm wondering what the point of one stop north is

Read the earlier pages of this thread (or the tram thread).....already discussed and explained.

citywatcher wrote:I'm wondering what the point of one stop north is

So they don't have to dig up the intersection again when they eventually extend the line north

timtam20292 wrote:Not a fan of that.

Yes, it's not the best drawing haha. Anyway, they haven't fully made the decision yet as they don't know the route(s) that will be added. Watch this space.

That's stupid....just bite the bullet and put the full grand union on to provide such an enormous amount of flexibility...the whole point of one stop north is to prevent digging the intersection up again...but without the full grand union they are gonna dig it up again away when they realised they actually need it

Ok. Fair enough. Thanks.

Tonsley213 wrote:That's stupid....just bite the bullet and put the full grand union on to provide such an enormous amount of flexibility...the whole point of one stop north is to prevent digging the intersection up again...but without the full grand union they are gonna dig it up again away when they realised they actually need it

Not necessarily disagreeing here, but apart from the extra cost, pointwork slows trams down, is a location of potential derailments and wear and tear and ongoing maintenance. So, the design needs to be grounded in an operational need. The original grand union there needed a curve from North Terrace to the north because of traffic from Hackney Depot, for example. Or, as designed in Jim's diagram, trams could go across the intersection from North to South quite fast with no facing points. Put in a set of facing points, and each tram has to slow down, even if it hits a green light.

Sooooo. What that means is that the design of the intersection only needs to take likely operations into account based on likely routes.

So, the question I'd ask, is what routes would likely ever use the various curves?

adelaide transport wrote:DPTI have purchased another 3 (secondhand)Citadis 302 LRV's from Madrid(exactly the same as our existing 200 fleet. This will bring the number of Citadis to 9.
The trams are due in late September.DTPI have called tenders for shipment from Madrid to Adelaide.

I guess the Spanish must have seen them coming. Lol!

I guess if they got them for cheap enough, and they are good shuttle trams. However, the original 6 were pretty damn expensive.

I wonder if we couldn't try to palm the Citadis off to Melbourne and get something better. I'm thinking of the longer term here. When we have trams to the suburbs, we'll probably need 50+ trams (that's a guess), so while Citadis at a good price are ok for shuttle work, they are by no means the best or most cost effective option for a large fleet, or for suburban higher speed running. So, why not start looking at options for the best tram for an expanded fleet now?

Because the business case for the trams has not been completed yet. The department has no idea how many trams it needs yet, if any at all. If the business case recommends only a city loop and airport line, it would be pretty silly to buy 50 trams now.



The business case will show how many and what types of trams we need.

buy some trams from Melbourne, those new ones - unless the gauge isn't right or the platforms are too short

Norman wrote:Because the business case for the trams has not been completed yet. The department has no idea how many trams it needs yet, if any at all. If the business case recommends only a city loop and airport line, it would be pretty silly to buy 50 trams now.



The business case will show how many and what types of trams we need.

Well yes, that's true enough. However, what's wrong with doing that exact business case before ordering the trams? Of course, that might mean the trams and extension were six months later, but is that a problem if we are talking about $300m worth of trams?

Why are we buying trams before a business case is undertaken? Why could the business case not have been done earlier? What's the hurry now that wasn't a hurry when we could have started a business case months earlier?

For example, knowing we are going to need something of the order of the 50 trams, why not look round for the most suitable and cost effective types now, buy three, and test them extensively in the next few years. Then when it comes time for the main order using $300m of taxpayer money, we'll have in depth experience on which to make a decision?

Of course there's no connection between this timing and the coming election, is there?

I think there's been a pretty good business case for at least the East end extension now. And yes getting it done before the election seems pretty sensible given the fact that despite their "bipartisan support" the Libs would probably try to cancel it in favour of a North Terrace road widening project or something. Getting the city loop and Prospect lines at least started now will increase pressure on whoever's in government from 2018 to continue with the project - especially if federal Labor threw some money this way.

The extra three trams (a known quantity and already proven in Adelaide) are a quick way of getting the extension up and running. Agree, however, that a long term strategy for rolling stock should be formulated depending on the outcome of the business case.

That's all well and good Llessur, but that's what we did ten years ago with the Citadis. Bought trams of an obsolete design for an outrageous price because we had to do it in a hurry. So, now we're doing the same thing. Buying something which is now even more out of date because we haven't planned well enough. Once is excusable. Twice? Not so much. Having said that, if we're paying $2m or so each, I'd say fair enough. But if it's a repeat of the $6m debacle ten years ago, heads should roll.

As an example of history repeating itself, almost a century ago, the MTT bought the C class "Desert Gold" trams to a then obsolete design because they needed trams in a hurry. Their reason was post war shortages of equipment, not poor planning or political time frames, of course.