News & Discussion: Trams

[Ben]

As part of the ACCs new city plan they are advocating for a city loop as part of their strategy 6.

https://meetings.cityofadelaide.com.au/ ... spx?ID=938

[Nort]

As part of the ACCs new city plan they are advocating for a city loop as part of their strategy 6.

https://meetings.cityofadelaide.com.au/ ... spx?ID=938

I'm pretty sure the ACC has been vocal in supporting any tram plans this whole time, so can't see it changing much unfortunately.

[1NEEDS2POST]

As part of the ACCs new city plan they are advocating for a city loop as part of their strategy 6.

https://meetings.cityofadelaide.com.au/ ... spx?ID=938

So they should kick a few dollars into this instead of relying on state government funding.

[SBD]

As part of the ACCs new city plan they are advocating for a city loop as part of their strategy 6.

https://meetings.cityofadelaide.com.au/ ... spx?ID=938

So they should kick a few dollars into this instead of relying on state government funding.

ACC seems to be quite capable of asserting that the entire state benefits from infrastructure that any other council would fund for itself - community swimming pool for example.

[Nathan]

As part of the ACCs new city plan they are advocating for a city loop as part of their strategy 6.

https://meetings.cityofadelaide.com.au/ ... spx?ID=938

So they should kick a few dollars into this instead of relying on state government funding.

ACC seems to be quite capable of asserting that the entire state benefits from infrastructure that any other council would fund for itself - community swimming pool for example.

Do be fair, the number of people that use the Adelaide Aquatic Centre from outside the City of Adelaide is greater than those within. It always has been a de facto swimming centre for the greater metro area.

[SBD]

So they should kick a few dollars into this instead of relying on state government funding.

ACC seems to be quite capable of asserting that the entire state benefits from infrastructure that any other council would fund for itself - community swimming pool for example.

Do be fair, the number of people that use the Adelaide Aquatic Centre from outside the City of Adelaide is greater than those within. It always has been a de facto swimming centre for the greater metro area.

I imagine that the same would apply to a city ring tram - the majority of users would not be ACC ratepayers. I've never used the Adelaide Aquatic Centre. I've been to both Council and private pools closer to where I've lived.

[rubberman]

It also reported David Pisoni as banging on about the North Terrace "right turn". I thought that even the Liberals, in government, buried that idea. It's stupid. When in government, I'm sure they were informed of that by all and sundry. While it's possible, physically, traffic already banks up as far as Dequetteville Terrace now in the peak. I can only imagine the turmoil if a special tram only cycle was required at the King William Street and North Terrace intersection. Truly stupid in today's traffic.

At the time I was told it was less about traffic, more about parliament house having to be buried behind a retaining wall in order to raise that corner of the intersection to the correct and level height, which was something they were told repeatedly before the election, but somehow only mattered after they won.

Well, it's sort of a reason...if they persisted in using Citadis trams. They have a large turning radius, and don't turn and bend in the vertical direction well. Of course, afaik, there's no more ex Madrid trams to be had, so the State Government could simply buy trams that could do the turn without all the retaining walls...like the H Cars could. Or the Škoda Forcity Alpha, or the various low floor versions of the old Tatra T3 running about. I mean, go to Melbourne. Plenty of far more cramped intersections with trams swinging through. Or any number of cities in Europe. Now, I am certain that the folks of Adelaide Metro know this. They aren't silly. However, best not to mention the obvious solutions when it ends up causing chaos in North Terrace.

[Spotto]

if they persisted in using Citadis trams. They have a large turning radius, and don't turn and bend in the vertical direction well. Of course, afaik, there's no more ex Madrid trams to be had, so the State Government could simply buy trams that could do the turn without all the retaining walls

Adelaide’s purchased nine units from Madrid over the years, is that all there was?

[rhino]

Adelaide’s purchased nine units from Madrid over the years, is that all there was?

They were surplus when the Madrid system ordered its trams, so they advertised them to recoup some money.

[rubberman]

if they persisted in using Citadis trams. They have a large turning radius, and don't turn and bend in the vertical direction well. Of course, afaik, there's no more ex Madrid trams to be had, so the State Government could simply buy trams that could do the turn without all the retaining walls

Adelaide’s purchased nine units from Madrid over the years, is that all there was?

There were a lot more, but they are sold off.

However, even if they were available, why buy them if they force the State Government to spend over $100m on a right turn? Plus, they are best suited to straight running on concrete track. They are single truck trams, so grind curves excessively, and bounce around on open ballast track such as to Glenelg. If the tram system was extended, they should be gotten rid of.

[1NEEDS2POST]

if they persisted in using Citadis trams. They have a large turning radius, and don't turn and bend in the vertical direction well. Of course, afaik, there's no more ex Madrid trams to be had, so the State Government could simply buy trams that could do the turn without all the retaining walls

Adelaide’s purchased nine units from Madrid over the years, is that all there was?

It was very opportunistic because Adelaide trams have an unusual loading gauge (for example, 2.4 m wide) that Madrid also has.

[whatstheirnamesmom]

There were a lot more, but they are sold off.

However, even if they were available, why buy them if they force the State Government to spend over $100m on a right turn?

Why would the government need to spend anything on a right turn? As far as I see it, a right turn onto North Terrace wouldn't enable any worthwhile new services. In the first generation days, trams only moved E-S and S-E through the intersection when heading to/from Hackney Depot, and then also for a few years when revenue service trams began using it once Payneham/Paradise and Fullarton/Springfield trams were through-routed with each other.

Any movements that a right turn at North Terrace would enable could be enabled elsewhere on an expanded network, especially with a city loop.

Plus, they are best suited to straight running on concrete track. They are single truck trams, so grind curves excessively, and bounce around on open ballast track such as to Glenelg. If the tram system was extended, they should be gotten rid of.

I get what you're saying, but a single truck tram would be an Adelaide Type A, B, C or G. The Citadis are rigid truck trams, however, so yes they do grind more than the Flexity trucks. The grinding from the Citadis aren't causing issues to the degree that their replacement is warranted at this stage. If network expansion occurs and any similar or tighter curves are required, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider. Replacement would ultimately depend on a lot of factors beyond just curve grinding alone – I would consider it very unlikely they will face early disposal.

[rubberman]

There were a lot more, but they are sold off.

However, even if they were available, why buy them if they force the State Government to spend over $100m on a right turn?

Why would the government need to spend anything on a right turn? As far as I see it, a right turn onto North Terrace wouldn't enable any worthwhile new services. In the first generation days, trams only moved E-S and S-E through the intersection when heading to/from Hackney Depot, and then also for a few years when revenue service trams began using it once Payneham/Paradise and Fullarton/Springfield trams were through-routed with each other.

Any movements that a right turn at North Terrace would enable could be enabled elsewhere on an expanded network, especially with a city loop.

Plus, they are best suited to straight running on concrete track. They are single truck trams, so grind curves excessively, and bounce around on open ballast track such as to Glenelg. If the tram system was extended, they should be gotten rid of.

I get what you're saying, but a single truck tram would be an Adelaide Type A, B, C or G. The Citadis are rigid truck trams, however, so yes they do grind more than the Flexity trucks. The grinding from the Citadis aren't causing issues to the degree that their replacement is warranted at this stage. If network expansion occurs and any similar or tighter curves are required, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider. Replacement would ultimately depend on a lot of factors beyond just curve grinding alone – I would consider it very unlikely they will face early disposal.

I agree that the right turn is daft. I was only referring to it in the context that that was one of the Adelink options.

The Citadis is effectively a couple of single truck trams like the Bib and Bub, with fancy joints between the sections. The type is likely better known by the "two rooms and a bath" descriptor from a patent originally taken out in 1892. They had a brief surge of popularity almost 100 years ago until revived by the likes of Alstom, and will probably die out for the same reasons they died out a century ago. They're cheaper to build, but are murder for track, and slower on open ballast than trams with swivelling trucks.

[EBG]

Perhaps Adelaide should consider buying some of Melbourne's new G class Trams- I sure they are designed to go around corners.

[claybro]

There were a lot more, but they are sold off.

However, even if they were available, why buy them if they force the State Government to spend over $100m on a right turn?

Why would the government need to spend anything on a right turn? As far as I see it, a right turn onto North Terrace wouldn't enable any worthwhile new services. In the first generation days, trams only moved E-S and S-E through the intersection when heading to/from Hackney Depot, and then also for a few years when revenue service trams began using it once Payneham/Paradise and Fullarton/Springfield trams were through-routed with each other.

Any movements that a right turn at North Terrace would enable could be enabled elsewhere on an expanded network, especially with a city loop.

Plus, they are best suited to straight running on concrete track. They are single truck trams, so grind curves excessively, and bounce around on open ballast track such as to Glenelg. If the tram system was extended, they should be gotten rid of.

I get what you're saying, but a single truck tram would be an Adelaide Type A, B, C or G. The Citadis are rigid truck trams, however, so yes they do grind more than the Flexity trucks. The grinding from the Citadis aren't causing issues to the degree that their replacement is warranted at this stage. If network expansion occurs and any similar or tighter curves are required, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider. Replacement would ultimately depend on a lot of factors beyond just curve grinding alone – I would consider it very unlikely they will face early disposal.

I agree that the right turn is daft. I was only referring to it in the context that that was one of the Adelink options.

The Citadis is effectively a couple of single truck trams like the Bib and Bub, with fancy joints between the sections. The type is likely better known by the "two rooms and a bath" descriptor from a patent originally taken out in 1892. They had a brief surge of popularity almost 100 years ago until revived by the likes of Alstom, and will probably die out for the same reasons they died out a century ago. They're cheaper to build, but are murder for track, and slower on open ballast than trams with swivelling trucks.

No sure that the right turn was/ is daft, given that the Botanic extension was envisaged as the beginning of extensions to the Eastern suburbs, and not having the right turn does limit the options for that extension even now. The cost to alter the intersection in money and disruption now would far outweigh the issues when the extension was first built. ( why are things deemed insurmountable now that were done with ease 120 years ago?) Any way- with regard to the Citadis- at the time it was a cost effective quick option for additional trams, but for future extensions and replacement trams- we really should try to do a deal with the Melbourne manufacturer to tack on to any Melbourne orders, if they can even keep up with their own requirements. Perhaps the federal government would be more inclined to input, if we guaranteed more "made in Australia" components, instead of ordering from Europe. All of this though- would require ongoing planning and momentum for the system -the lack of which causes most of the issues SA encounters.