BTW, these Alstom Citadis trams have already been dubbed the Alstom Amigos.

You are quite correct on the issues of storage, interest etc. However, given that the price is about half, and that there are major efficiencies in plant standardisation, and the fact that trams have very long lives leading to reduced issues about depreciation etc, you would think it is something that should not be dismissed out of hand - especially as you say if they could be leased for some of that period.AtD wrote:The Outer Harbor line is looking at a time frame of 2014/15, so that's 6 years away. In the mean time, they'd need to be placed in storage either here or in Europe. They'll be purchased on debt, paying interest and suffering depreciation for six years before they get used. Not a wise use of taxpayers money - there's other things we could buy that can be in use now.
Still, we're assuming there's more than six available. Melbourne already runs these, so surely they'll have their hat in the game along with other cities from across the globe.
Maybe we could buy them, then lease them to Melbourne.
I have read a similar arguement in letters to the editor published in the Advertiser on numerous occassions yet I alwalys fail to understand it. I do not think a city exists in the wolrd where people are not crammed into public transport at peak hour. Why should Adelaide be any different? the trams are not 'chockers' outside of peak hour.peachy wrote:Funny how the Rann gov rushed the decision of choosing the current less than adequate model of tram, based on the fact it was the only one that could be up and running in time for the last election and now they are fixing their blunder a term later in time for another election. Despite my frustration every time i cram into a chockers tram at rann & co for putting their election prospects ahead of the people they are meant to represent, i do eagerly look forward to the possibility the new trams will be prima and i can move on into a new golden age of Glenelg-City tram travel (and maybe a new gov to boot).
Those pics just add to the excitement, its just like christmas.
That timeframe was based on the needlessly complicated dual voltage operation. If we just stick with DC electrification of the line, the project could be brought forward.AtD wrote:The Outer Harbor line is looking at a time frame of 2014/15, so that's 6 years away. In the mean time, they'd need to be placed in storage either here or in Europe. They'll be purchased on debt, paying interest and suffering depreciation for six years before they get used. Not a wise use of taxpayers money - there's other things we could buy that can be in use now.
Firstly, lots of cities exist where people are not crammed into public transport at peak hour. Secondly, our peak hour capacity is grossly inadequate. The trams would carry more people if those people could fit on - and more still if they didn't have to stand all the way!Will wrote:I have read a similar arguement in letters to the editor published in the Advertiser on numerous occassions yet I alwalys fail to understand it. I do not think a city exists in the wolrd where people are not crammed into public transport at peak hour. Why should Adelaide be any different? the trams are not 'chockers' outside of peak hour.peachy wrote:Funny how the Rann gov rushed the decision of choosing the current less than adequate model of tram, based on the fact it was the only one that could be up and running in time for the last election and now they are fixing their blunder a term later in time for another election. Despite my frustration every time i cram into a chockers tram at rann & co for putting their election prospects ahead of the people they are meant to represent, i do eagerly look forward to the possibility the new trams will be prima and i can move on into a new golden age of Glenelg-City tram travel (and maybe a new gov to boot).
Those pics just add to the excitement, its just like christmas.
Bad example - Adelaide had an extensive tram network in the 1920s!But furthermore I find it paradoxical that you are excited at the prospect of new golden era of tram travel yet at the same time want a Liberal government. Recall that this is the same mob that opposed the 2007 tram extension as well as the current plans for extensions. If it was for them the Adelaide tram netwrok would still be in the 1920s.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.
No it's not a fitting example - our tram network had enormous backward changes as nearly all of it was dismantled - there were no improvements until the 21st century. Compare that with Melbourne which didn't change as much, but what changes have been made there are generally positive.rev wrote:It's not a bad example, as he is pointing out that if the Liberals were in charge(and had we maintained that network), it would not have changed much since the 1920's, and if any changes did occur, they'd most likely be as backwards and ludicrous as the one way expressway the Libs built.
So it is a fitting example.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.
Yeah you're right, my off the cuff comment is a bit hypocritical. Although i still say the gov picked the wrong tram for their own election interests but i know thats politics and that kind of thing happens everywhere so its a bit harsh to single them out and as if the opposition wouldn't do the same type of thing.Will wrote:I have read a similar arguement in letters to the editor published in the Advertiser on numerous occassions yet I alwalys fail to understand it. I do not think a city exists in the wolrd where people are not crammed into public transport at peak hour. Why should Adelaide be any different? the trams are not 'chockers' outside of peak hour.peachy wrote:Funny how the Rann gov rushed the decision of choosing the current less than adequate model of tram, based on the fact it was the only one that could be up and running in time for the last election and now they are fixing their blunder a term later in time for another election. Despite my frustration every time i cram into a chockers tram at rann & co for putting their election prospects ahead of the people they are meant to represent, i do eagerly look forward to the possibility the new trams will be prima and i can move on into a new golden age of Glenelg-City tram travel (and maybe a new gov to boot).
Those pics just add to the excitement, its just like christmas.
But furthermore I find it paradoxical that you are excited at the prospect of new golden era of tram travel yet at the same time want a Liberal government. Recall that this is the same mob that opposed the 2007 tram extension as well as the current plans for extensions. If it was for them the Adelaide tram netwrok would still be in the 1920s.
Flexity Classic:MetroTram wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 32m
Units per tram: 5
Passenger capacity - Seated: 54
Passenger capacity - Crush: 186
Bombardier wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 30m
Units per tram: 3
Passenger capacity - Seated: 64
Passenger capacity - Crush: 115 (4 pass/m²)
based on those stats, the Madrid trams will fit perfectly. Infact even a slightly longer tram would fit in the platforms. Send em now over pleaseWill409 wrote:After much searching around the internet by several Railpage members (myself included), member 'scrat' finally found some specifications for the Madrid Citadis fleet. There are a few other items in the tram specification which I think made for an interesting comparison between the Citadis and Flexity.
Model 302 Citadis:
http://www.metrotram.it/index.php?vmcit ... ind=0?=engFlexity Classic:MetroTram wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 32m
Units per tram: 5
Passenger capacity - Seated: 54
Passenger capacity - Crush: 186
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transporta ... 0d8000bcec#Bombardier wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 30m
Units per tram: 3
Passenger capacity - Seated: 64
Passenger capacity - Crush: 115 (4 pass/m²)
Hopefully the door crowds will be less of a problem with the 5 huge doors on each side the Madrid 302s have.monotonehell wrote:Less seats, more standing room? I can't decide if that's a good or bad thing. The big problem with our current fleet is there's sod all to hand onto if you are standing, and if people are standing good luck getting to the doors. We haven't developed the Japanese courtesy of getting out to let people off before cramming back in that they have on their metro.
More trams should allow headways to be reduced, so the total number of seats will increase. Therefore it's a good thing.monotonehell wrote:Less seats, more standing room? I can't decide if that's a good or bad thing.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.
Out of curiosity, what is the crush capacity of a two car poxbox train?Will409 wrote:After much searching around the internet by several Railpage members (myself included), member 'scrat' finally found some specifications for the Madrid Citadis fleet. There are a few other items in the tram specification which I think made for an interesting comparison between the Citadis and Flexity.
Model 302 Citadis:
http://www.metrotram.it/index.php?vmcit ... ind=0?=engFlexity Classic:MetroTram wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 32m
Units per tram: 5
Passenger capacity - Seated: 54
Passenger capacity - Crush: 186
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transporta ... 0d8000bcec#Bombardier wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 30m
Units per tram: 3
Passenger capacity - Seated: 64
Passenger capacity - Crush: 115 (4 pass/m²)
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 2 guests