News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
Spotto
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4201 Post by Spotto » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:13 pm

Such regular frequency would be creating a nice backlog of trams on approach to South Terrace since only one platform can be used instead of two. Just experienced it now, we crawled and stop-started from Wayville to South Terrace.

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

#4202 Post by rubberman » Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:58 pm

Patrick_27 wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:23 pm
rubberman wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:53 pm
Spotto wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:15 pm


As someone unfamiliar with tram technicalities, what are the reasons for people’s hatred of the Citadis Trams?
I'm not sure if you are familiar with tram history. If not, have a look at the website of the Australian Electric Transport Museum. In it they show various of the old trams they have on display. Worth a look.

Now, there are a couple of broad groupings of tram bogies relevant here. The first, and oldest, termed "single truckers" have a fixed bogie, and when such a tram hits a curve, the whole tram moves, lurching left or right as the tram hits a curve. That track must withstand the whole force, concentrated in time, to force the whole body weight round. The second tram type, usually classified as a "bogie car" has swivelling bogies. When such a car enters a curve, it's only the weight of the bogie that initially is borne by the track. This leads to much less wear on the track.

In addition, on open ballast track which settles a little unevenly over the years, single truck cars can get a sway and bouncing motion up. This limits their maximum speed unless the track is perfect. Bogie cars have a much better tolerance of imperfect track.

As you might have guessed, Citadis are essentially single truck trams. They wear track out faster than bogie trams, and when track is imperfect, they are speed limited. Of course, if the Citadis are speed limited, then that limits the ability of timetable planners to speed up the service from Brighton Road to the City.

So, they slow the system down and wear out track much faster than other trams available.

Referring back to the tram museum web page, you might like to look for the museum's "Bib and Bub" cars. Essentially, this is what the Citadis are, but with a nice modern body. The essential physics stays the same. Nice styling does not trump the laws of physics.
Thanks for this! I've had zero understanding of this as well. It's a shame that they have a negative impact on the tracks because for me the Citadis are a nicer, more spacious tram than the Bombardier.
For pretty much the same price as the original Citadis order, we could have had this:

https://youtu.be/1k22g5_cfQo

Note the complete 100% low floor, no plinths to climb to get to seats, swivelling bogies.


Or, for a bit more, Melbourne type Flexities.

Another issue I didn't mention because it wasn't Citadis' fault was that there's not an unlimited number of them. So, sooner or later, as we need more trams, we will need to look elsewhere. That then raises the questions: more Flexities like we have and standardise? But then as you say, their layout is underwhelming. Or a third type of tram, meaning ridiculously small numbers of each type?

The Citadis purchases locked us into this rather silly and uneconomic situation. That's not a fault of the tram itself, rather the lack of strategic thinking waaaay back. For what we spent, we could have had a fleet of 100% low floor, swivelling bogie trams with a good layout for very likely less than we will end up paying for an uneconomic mismatch of only partly low floor and track chewing vehicles of different types.

Looked at like that, I sort of understand why the Liberals might look at privatising. I don't agree. I suspect that unless they get someone like DP in Prague to do it, privatising will suck. But...I can see, given the record why they are casting around for different approaches.

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: City
Has thanked: 566 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4203 Post by SRW » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:44 pm

rubberman wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:53 pm
Spotto wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:15 pm
rubberman wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:57 am
Given that the tramline will be out of action for three weeks in the CBD and down to the Entertainment Centre, will the government take the opportunity to grind out the noisy corrugations that have developed, and weld up the wear the Citadis have caused on various curves.

It would seem to be the perfect and cheapest opportunity.
As someone unfamiliar with tram technicalities, what are the reasons for people’s hatred of the Citadis Trams?
I'm not sure if you are familiar with tram history. If not, have a look at the website of the Australian Electric Transport Museum. In it they show various of the old trams they have on display. Worth a look.

Now, there are a couple of broad groupings of tram bogies relevant here. The first, and oldest, termed "single truckers" have a fixed bogie, and when such a tram hits a curve, the whole tram moves, lurching left or right as the tram hits a curve. That track must withstand the whole force, concentrated in time, to force the whole body weight round. The second tram type, usually classified as a "bogie car" has swivelling bogies. When such a car enters a curve, it's only the weight of the bogie that initially is borne by the track. This leads to much less wear on the track.

In addition, on open ballast track which settles a little unevenly over the years, single truck cars can get a sway and bouncing motion up. This limits their maximum speed unless the track is perfect. Bogie cars have a much better tolerance of imperfect track.

As you might have guessed, Citadis are essentially single truck trams. They wear track out faster than bogie trams, and when track is imperfect, they are speed limited. Of course, if the Citadis are speed limited, then that limits the ability of timetable planners to speed up the service from Brighton Road to the City.

So, they slow the system down and wear out track much faster than other trams available.

Referring back to the tram museum web page, you might like to look for the museum's "Bib and Bub" cars. Essentially, this is what the Citadis are, but with a nice modern body. The essential physics stays the same. Nice styling does not trump the laws of physics.
If this is the case, why do they still design trams with this type of bogie? Are there advantages to particular networks?
Keep Adelaide Weird

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

#4204 Post by rubberman » Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:43 am

SRW wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:44 pm
rubberman wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:53 pm
Spotto wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:15 pm


As someone unfamiliar with tram technicalities, what are the reasons for people’s hatred of the Citadis Trams?
I'm not sure if you are familiar with tram history. If not, have a look at the website of the Australian Electric Transport Museum. In it they show various of the old trams they have on display. Worth a look.

Now, there are a couple of broad groupings of tram bogies relevant here. The first, and oldest, termed "single truckers" have a fixed bogie, and when such a tram hits a curve, the whole tram moves, lurching left or right as the tram hits a curve. That track must withstand the whole force, concentrated in time, to force the whole body weight round. The second tram type, usually classified as a "bogie car" has swivelling bogies. When such a car enters a curve, it's only the weight of the bogie that initially is borne by the track. This leads to much less wear on the track.

In addition, on open ballast track which settles a little unevenly over the years, single truck cars can get a sway and bouncing motion up. This limits their maximum speed unless the track is perfect. Bogie cars have a much better tolerance of imperfect track.

As you might have guessed, Citadis are essentially single truck trams. They wear track out faster than bogie trams, and when track is imperfect, they are speed limited. Of course, if the Citadis are speed limited, then that limits the ability of timetable planners to speed up the service from Brighton Road to the City.

So, they slow the system down and wear out track much faster than other trams available.

Referring back to the tram museum web page, you might like to look for the museum's "Bib and Bub" cars. Essentially, this is what the Citadis are, but with a nice modern body. The essential physics stays the same. Nice styling does not trump the laws of physics.
If this is the case, why do they still design trams with this type of bogie? Are there advantages to particular networks?
In a word: cheap!

They are cheaper to build. Which makes it all the more galling that Adelaide paid top dollar.

History is actually repeating. The initial trams that took over from horse and steam around the world were single fixed bogie cars because that was the cheapest construction. Then, as operators were faced with the reality of expensive early track replacement, they switched to swivelling bogie cars. They were more expensive, but much kinder to track, and ran faster on rough track. These were so much cheaper overall, that by the 1920s, most new trams were of the swivelling bogie type. That was true round the world, and in Australia, and Adelaide. After the C class was built around 1919, every new car built was of the swivelling bogie type.

What happened though, in the 1950s and 60s, trams were abandoned, and, except for central Europe and Melbourne, this lesson was forgotten. Thus, when trams started reviving in the 1990s, new start up companies in France, Italy and Spain repeated forgotten history. Central European countries like Germany, Austria, Czech Republic and Poland didn't forget though, and continued building swivelling bogie cars. Trouble is, they were a bit more expensive, and looked the same.

So, here we are. Just like 100 years ago, with a mix of fixed bogie cars and swivelling bogie cars and track getting worn. While the trams aren't running, take a walk along the track on the side of Victoria Square where the curves are. They are worn markedly after 12 years. Compare that to the relatively little wear on the curves in the old Victoria Square Terminus. Those curves still had life left in them after forty years. Check out the wear in Victoria Square today after only twelve years. The difference? A few fixed bogie cars.

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4205 Post by Goodsy » Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:54 pm

what a shock

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... dde3ea2543
Adelaide City Loop and North Adelaide tram plans shelved until after 2022 state election
Paul Starick — Exclusive, Chief Reporter, Sunday Mail (SA)
July 13, 2019 11:00pm
Subscriber only

City loop and North Adelaide tram extensions detailed in a major Liberal state election policy are being shelved until at least after the next poll in 2022.

Lines to O’Connell St and linking the East End, Central Market and Entertainment Centre via North and East terraces and Hutt, Angas and Gouger streets were outlined in the Liberal public transport policy taken to last year’s election.

Transport Minister Stephan Knoll last week told the Sunday Mail the extensions were definitely being considered and the Government was open to the idea in the longer term.

The Sunday Mail has since been told no tram extensions would be considered by Cabinet before the next election in March, 2022.

It also is understood they would not be funded by planned outsourcing of train and tram services, savings from which would be ploughed into increasing existing service frequency.

Asked about the prospect of expanding the tram network, Mr Knoll said: “The two ideas that we’re still very open to are the city loop … and the extension to O’Connell St (North Adelaide) are things that we’re definitely considering.

“We think that trams are really good people movers. But they do their best work when they actually help connect short-range communities.”

Mr Knoll last month revealed the Government and Adelaide City Council would develop a 20-year transport strategy to “inform future transport projects in and around” the CBD.

He told the Sunday Mail trains were most effective at moving large numbers of people from the suburbs, while the city tram extension had helped movement around the CBD.

“We think if you extend through the city or connect the city it helps generate investment … and I definitely think if you stuck it up O’Connell St that would drive investment,” he said.

“ … That’s definitely an idea that we are very open to — it’s just not on in the short term.”

Labor treasury spokesman Stephen Mullighan said delaying tram extensions would be a huge blow for North Adelaide’s economy and the public transport system.

“It’s been proven in Adelaide that trams have a really important role, not only in boosting public transport patronage but also in revitalising urban areas,” he said.

Labor’s 2018 election pledges included a $259 tram extension to North Adelaide and $279 million line to Norwood Parade but the latter was scuttled by the victorious Liberals.

Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor said: “I have a good working relationship with Minister Knoll and he knows that a CBD tram loop and extensions to key inner-city areas, such as North Adelaide, remains high on our list of priorities.

“We know tram networks boost economic growth and make it easier for residents and visitors to move around the city, so I’ll continue to advocate for the State Government to fund a city loop.”

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4206 Post by Waewick » Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:08 pm

Very odd article.

Libs make a mess out of another issue.

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

#4207 Post by rubberman » Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:19 pm

Waewick wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:08 pm
Very odd article.

Libs make a mess out of another issue.
Well, based on the costs, I can't see anybody justifying a substantially different course.

However, they are missing a number of minor tweaks to the policy that would have served them well politically. That is, they could easily have restated the same thing, but said because Labor's plan was needlessly expensive, and relatively inefficient, that they would look at ways to achieve the same outcomes, but at far less cost. Such a study could be done relatively cheaply over the next three years. Guaranteed to come out cheaper than Labor's plan, and of course, it would take till 2022 to do! Lol!

Coming up with a report in three years and making the ALP look spendthrift was a viable option, both economically responsible, and politically useful. That's what they missed.

User avatar
1NEEDS2POST
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4208 Post by 1NEEDS2POST » Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:29 pm

No surprises there. Their election promise was to cut, cut, cut.

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

#4209 Post by rubberman » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:52 am

1NEEDS2POST wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:29 pm
No surprises there. Their election promise was to cut, cut, cut.
Actually, they promised to look at a City Loop and North Adelaide.

However, the costs of the North Adelaide extension as presented by the previous Government were outrageous. I don't see how the present Government should be criticised for not proceeding with something if it's too expensive.

If the cost was reasonable, then, yes, they should have gone ahead. However, the idea of spending over $200m to just get to North Adelaide is eye wateringly uneconomic. Lots of other good things can be done with that sort of money.

Let Labor use its time in opposition to come up with something that costs half that, and maybe it might be worth doing. But $100m per kilometre? Nope.

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2595
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm
Has thanked: 1094 times
Been thanked: 264 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4210 Post by [Shuz] » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:59 am

The North Adelaide extension is only expensive because of the work that needs to be done to the King William Street Bridge. I'm no expert and at face value I can see why the general public (and even myself) don't understand this to be the case given that trams went over the same bridge 70 years ago, however, we need to trust the rail experts who are the ones that know about the engineering and design specifications and standards that apply today.

Any extension also requires the construction of a new tram depot, which adds to the cost, because Glengowrie is at full capacity. Once these two costly hurdles have been overcome, then any future extensions should be much cheaper on a per kilometre basis.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4211 Post by claybro » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:12 am

The mess and cost that was the most recent extension has put a halt to these extensions for now. I don't think the general public really embraced the last extension, and the Libs will not lose any votes by putting a stop to any further at this stage. As others have pointed out, unless the cost can be brought down to a more reasonable level, the benefits better explained and the implementation not descend into high farce, the public might be more on board.

Eurostar
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4212 Post by Eurostar » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:27 am

I would like to see the money spent elsewhere like grade separating the intersection of Elder Smith Road and Salisbury Highway or upgrading Bridge Road (bus stop bays, median between McIntyre Road and Smith Road, traffic light at intersection of Wynn Vale Drive) or putting in traffic lights at Haydown Road/John Rice Avenue intersection.

Westside
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 4:30 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4213 Post by Westside » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:24 pm

Eurostar wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:27 am
I would like to see the money spent elsewhere like grade separating the intersection of Elder Smith Road and Salisbury Highway or upgrading Bridge Road (bus stop bays, median between McIntyre Road and Smith Road, traffic light at intersection of Wynn Vale Drive) or putting in traffic lights at Haydown Road/John Rice Avenue intersection.
I think that the roads budget is more than adequate already. The level of public transport spending in this state is pathetic. Look at the huge projects in proposal, under construction or recently constructed in Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane, Gold Coast and even Newcastle. All we've got is 3 extra tram stops, a couple of underpasses and tiny bus tunnel in the past 5 years!

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4214 Post by SBD » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:35 pm

Eurostar wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:27 am
I would like to see the money spent elsewhere like grade separating the intersection of Elder Smith Road and Salisbury Highway or upgrading Bridge Road (bus stop bays, median between McIntyre Road and Smith Road, traffic light at intersection of Wynn Vale Drive) or putting in traffic lights at Haydown Road/John Rice Avenue intersection.
I wouldn't spend much money on the Elder Smith/Salisbury Highway intersection until it is clear how much the traffic flows change as a consequence of the Northern Connector.

My GPS navigator currently recommends Main North Road/Elder Smith Drive/Salisbury Highway/South Road to get to and from the western suburbs (from northern suburbs). We usually ignore it and use John Rice Avenue/Salisbury Highway in peak hour or Curtis Road/Northern Expressway at other times.

Opening the Northern Connector (including Bolivar interchange) and some relatively minor changes to Waterloo Corner Road, Curtis Road and Womma Road have the potential to divert some of the traffic off of Elder Smith Drive. A wait-and-see attitude might be worthwhile for at least a year.

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

#4215 Post by rubberman » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:04 pm

[Shuz] wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:59 am
The North Adelaide extension is only expensive because of the work that needs to be done to the King William Street Bridge. I'm no expert and at face value I can see why the general public (and even myself) don't understand this to be the case given that trams went over the same bridge 70 years ago, however, we need to trust the rail experts who are the ones that know about the engineering and design specifications and standards that apply today.

Any extension also requires the construction of a new tram depot, which adds to the cost, because Glengowrie is at full capacity. Once these two costly hurdles have been overcome, then any future extensions should be much cheaper on a per kilometre basis.
When the bridge works were first mooted, I went to the DPTI website to check the design loads. The website stated that structures for both tram and railcar were to be designed using the same loads. I downloaded the pdf and have it still. I call BS. The bridge does not need to be able to take railcars. Nor will I trust rail "experts" who say it should. I drew the attention of the DPTI to this. The only reaction was to take the web page down.

Was the provision of a new depot included in the $200m? If so, that makes a difference for certain. However, I'd also like to see it confirmed, rather than get an unpleasant extra surprise.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Listy and 14 guests