News & Discussion: Trams

[AG]

Time to buy extra trams or extend existing ones. People are not catching trams for the novelty factor anymore, but the trams are still packed. I for one have stopped taking the tram because I can never get on. Increase the frequency and capacity of the trams and patronage will increase.

Even if the Government and TransAdelaide can get their hands on several more trams, some of them would be redundant anyway in the current situation because of the capacity constraints formed by the crossings at South and Marion Roads.

This could be solved by timing the tram crossing with the Anzac Highway lights as they do with Greenhill Rd. Marion Rd would need to be timed with the Cross Rd lights in the morning. South Rd will be solved once the bridge is completed (in a couple of years time).

IMO all the existing crossings should be replaced by traffic signals (other than South Road obviously) as they do with tram routes 96 and 109 in Melbourne, it would certainly improve the flow of traffic. At some crossings road traffic is held up for longer than it should be as the trams are stopped at platforms while the lights are still flashing.

[jimmy_2486]

I think they should eventually grade seperate the whole tram path into the city. Having boom gates is a joke is could also be a big contributing factor to some of the peak hour woes down south.

Could those new trams be coupled together, if re-engineered?? are the platforms long enough?

[urban]

AG, I agree, I'm sure most tram patrons would be happy to trade a slightly longer trip for increased capacity and frequency. South, Marion, Cross and Brighton Roads are the only roads that would need lights. The other crossings only serve minor roads and I'm sure the local residents would appreciate anything which discourages traffic.

I wouldn't support grade separating the trams. The attraction of trams is that they connect into the urban fabric. The interface between the tram corridor and the area around it should be improved. The Govt's plan to assist councils to develop bike path's along the corridor is a good step in this direction.

[muzzamo]

I wouldn't support grade separating the trams. The attraction of trams is that they connect into the urban fabric.

I can see where you are coming from but that is certainly debatable. Grade separated trams at a frequency of 5min would be the ultimate setup imo.

[Will409]

Could those new trams be coupled together, if re-engineered?? are the platforms long enough?

The Flexis can be coupled together because they have Schafenburg couplers mounted under the cab console. The can be deployed by lifting the front bumber up and pulling the coupler out from under it. This has already been used a couple of times when a Flexi has had a flipped panto (where it flips over where it shouldn't be and breaks) and has had another Flexi or in one case, even an H class via a huge transition coupler. Photos from BillD as proof.




The platforms at present are long enough of the Flexis were given a fourth section but couldn't hand a coupled set other then having only 4 doors out of 6 open on the platform.

[jimmy_2486]

I wouldn't support grade separating the trams. The attraction of trams is that they connect into the urban fabric. The interface between the tram corridor and the area around it should be improved.

As a daily user of the trams to get to/from work, having traffic lights in the suburbs would not make trams more attractive to me.... it would most likely PISS ME OFF! I certainly dont want to have to catch an earlier tram becuase people who watch the trams go by will say "oh, the trams are so attractive because they connect into urban fabric..."

PT is about moving people....not to provide a spectacle for onlookers??

Its attitudes like that, which ensure Adelaide has the highest percentage of car drivers in the country.

[urban]

Connecting into the urban fabric is not about providing a spectacle for onlookers it is about providing the greatest connection between where the tram stops and where the people who catch the tram live. It is about making it as easy as possible for people to get to the tram. It is about creating opportunities for shops and other developments to occur around the tram stops so that it is easier to do a little bit of shopping on your way home, ie picking up some milk or the paper.

The reason adelaide has high car usage is exactly because the PT doesn't connect into the urban fabric. Our public transport is always shunted off into corridors with buffer zones around them. Our train lines divide suburbs instead of connecting them. There is more to PT than just getting A to B as quickly as possible. You have to get from home to A and from B to work and maybe do some errands on the way, pick up groceries, drop kids at school/childcare, have a drink at the pub with some mates. Connecting the trams into the urban fabric helps make the tram corridor safer and makes the streets more active.

It is blinkered one dimensional thinking like yours which holds Adelaide back from being a vibrant city. Vibrancy relies on the interaction of people and their activities. The ultimate result of 'efficient' design as advocated by you is cities like Brasilia, Beautiful buildings with people efficiently transported from the houses to the CBD and back again. During the day the housing area is lifeless while at night and weekends you would be lucky to see another person.

[muzzamo]

The reason adelaide has high car usage is exactly because the PT doesn't connect into the urban fabric.

You sound like someone who has been to uni too much and not much else. It is not a game of simcity.

[Omicron]

Connecting into the urban fabric is not about providing a spectacle for onlookers it is about providing the greatest connection between where the tram stops and where the people who catch the tram live. It is about making it as easy as possible for people to get to the tram. It is about creating opportunities for shops and other developments to occur around the tram stops so that it is easier to do a little bit of shopping on your way home, ie picking up some milk or the paper.

The reason adelaide has high car usage is exactly because the PT doesn't connect into the urban fabric. Our public transport is always shunted off into corridors with buffer zones around them. Our train lines divide suburbs instead of connecting them. There is more to PT than just getting A to B as quickly as possible. You have to get from home to A and from B to work and maybe do some errands on the way, pick up groceries, drop kids at school/childcare, have a drink at the pub with some mates. Connecting the trams into the urban fabric helps make the tram corridor safer and makes the streets more active.

It is blinkered one dimensional thinking like yours which holds Adelaide back from being a vibrant city. Vibrancy relies on the interaction of people and their activities. The ultimate result of 'efficient' design as advocated by you is cities like Brasilia, Beautiful buildings with people efficiently transported from the houses to the CBD and back again. During the day the housing area is lifeless while at night and weekends you would be lucky to see another person.

I like that you've used Brasilia as an example, because while it looks rather impressive as an example of '60s architecture and urban design on a grand scale, the city centre is neither lively nor useful beyond its role as a vast office network. I agree that our aim ought to be the integration of public transport and suburbia where it is appropriate, and the tramline is the perfect example of a transport medium that should appeal based on its ease of accessibility. Overpasses, while effective at eliminating stop-start trips, seem more suited to high-volume corridors where the aim is for all passengers to reach the ultimate destination - the tram's close proximity to the street level (and less confronting infrastructure) encourage more casual point A to point B trips.

In any case, I would think that the aim of the tramline has never been the most rapid movement of passengers from one destination to another - that seems to me to be the role of trains, and to a lesser extent, express buses. It is true that would should aim for the most efficient service within reason, but absolute efficiency is often achieved at the expense of desirability.

[jimmy_2486]

Urban, if I wanted to catch PT that went onto the urban fabric as you say.....then I catch a bus because thats what they are for.

If I just wanna goto the city for work/uni/school then you catch the fast light/heavy rail services that are available.

Heavy rail (which isn't really that heavy here) provides minimal stoppages at major interchanges for outer suburban commuters. The Noarlunga and Gawler lines are the only lines that really qualify for use of heavy rail. Outer Harbor line is debatable, but id say light rail but with possibly coupled trams. I would also think that both Noarlunga and Gawler lines should be extended out to Aldinga/Sellicks and the Gawler could go into the Barossa Region.

Light rail (which hopefully we will see more of) should provide a metro style service. The Glenelg tram is great, but further improvements could be for all other rail corridors to join onto KWS somehow from the north and south. This would allow other train lines to be converted to light rail such as Grange, Tonsley, Outer Harbor etc. Even Noarlunga/Gawler lines should have light rail services servicing the inner suburbs so that the heavy rail should only stop at a select few major stops (eg Mawson Lakes to city, and Brighton to city).

However for this, we need upgrades to our tracks and electrification of our lines. Also, the corridors would need more tracks to cope with the extra rail traffic.

Once they are done we could think about converting KWS/north tce into a subway and running our heavy rail through the city instead of around it. This would mean we could see a Noarlunga to Gawler (or Aldinga to Barossa) heavy rail service. Light rail would also use it.

After that we could build an east/west metro subway going to harbor town, airport, city, parade, magill and henley square.


So....theres some vision people. I know this seem alot for laid back Adelaide, but just remember that many other cities are trying to work towards these systems. If we got no money like everyone is saying, then well they better start saving their pennies.

[Shuz]

If anyone knows of the 96 route in Melbourne (runs adjacent Canterbury Rd and Albert Park) the entire line is grade seperated, and I think it still connects to its surroundings just as effectively as a street-level tramline does. With the exception of the CBD and Jetty Road, the rest of the line may as well be ingrounded, eliminating all level crossings. Costly, but it would reduce capacity constraints and allow for VERY frequent operational services (3mins peak/7 mins off).

[monotonehell]

Urban, if I wanted to catch PT that went onto the urban fabric as you say.....then I catch a bus because thats what they are for.

If I just wanna goto the city for work/uni/school then you catch the fast light/heavy rail services that are available.

Heavy rail (which isn't really that heavy here) provides minimal stoppages at major interchanges for outer suburban commuters. The Noarlunga and Gawler lines are the only lines that really qualify for use of heavy rail. Outer Harbor line is debatable, but id say light rail but with possibly coupled trams. I would also think that both Noarlunga and Gawler lines should be extended out to Aldinga/Sellicks and the Gawler could go into the Barossa Region.

Light rail (which hopefully we will see more of) should provide a metro style service. The Glenelg tram is great, but further improvements could be for all other rail corridors to join onto KWS somehow from the north and south. This would allow other train lines to be converted to light rail such as Grange, Tonsley, Outer Harbor etc. Even Noarlunga/Gawler lines should have light rail services servicing the inner suburbs so that the heavy rail should only stop at a select few major stops (eg Mawson Lakes to city, and Brighton to city).

However for this, we need upgrades to our tracks and electrification of our lines. Also, the corridors would need more tracks to cope with the extra rail traffic.

Once they are done we could think about converting KWS/north tce into a subway and running our heavy rail through the city instead of around it. This would mean we could see a Noarlunga to Gawler (or Aldinga to Barossa) heavy rail service. Light rail would also use it.

After that we could build an east/west metro subway going to harbor town, airport, city, parade, magill and henley square.

I agree with pretty much all you say here, but I believe that we missed the chance to put a subway down KWS decades ago. The high rise and other development along KWS has made cut and cover impossible at least, I'm unsure about tunnelling methods but I've been lead to believe that they are also such an engineering challenge that they would be cost inhibitive.

[AG]

I don't necessarily agree with tunnelling being too impractical to be engineered to a reasonable cost. Cut and cover wouldn't work as you say as it would be too disruptive and would require bends that are too tight for rail vehicles. But deep level tunnelling would allow the tunnels to pass under some building foundations if done carefully (it was done under some skyscrapers on the northeastern corner of Melbourne's City Loop), and it may not even be necessary if the tunnels run parallel to North Terrace north of Parliament rather than under North Terrace itself.

[monotonehell]

I don't necessarily agree with tunnelling being too impractical to be engineered to a reasonable cost. Cut and cover wouldn't work as you say as it would be too disruptive and would require bends that are too tight for rail vehicles. But deep level tunnelling would allow the tunnels to pass under some building foundations if done carefully (it was done under some skyscrapers on the northeastern corner of Melbourne's City Loop), and it may not even be necessary if the tunnels run parallel to North Terrace north of Parliament rather than under North Terrace itself.

Considering how many departures would be necessary to service all the suburban lines, how large would a subterranean station need to be and how could it operate? Sitting in Adelaide Station during peak period suggests that a lot of thought needs to be put into this. I doubt a subway like the MATS plan would cut it these days.

[jk1237]

no no, whats proposed and needed is an underground loop from the Adl railway station, under the CBD, and the under the west parklands to meet up to the main lines near Keswick, to rid Adel of its dead end situation. The MATS plan was also trying to do this. Therefore the same train from Gawler continues to Noarlunga, Grange train goes to Belair, Outer Harb train goes to Brighton/Tonsley etc, so we dont need a large station at all. I even reckon we could cope with 2 tunnels only, 1 north bound and 1 southbound, because you could get away with having trains every 3 mins, I think