Sensational-Adelaide.com

I had confirmation today from DPTI that works start in July and the first tram service is scheduled to start in December this year.

mshagg wrote:

Llessur2002 wrote: I really don't think the Opposition has any interest in the tram network whatsoever and I can't therefore see them allocating resources to formulate an alternative proposal as my understanding is their preference would be no new trams and no new tram lines. Suggesting an alternative would mean they would need to show some genuine interest in expanding the system which, other than trashing the proposed Unley and Prospect Road extensions, they have rarely ever mentioned.

Plus, has the purchase price actually been revealed yet?

Isn't opposition policy on this guided by wowsers who complain about disruption trams cause to their single-occupant daily drive to the city?

"Trams?!? What are youse gonna do about the price of parking?"

Hey! Great idea!

Make stage one of the tram network several routes out to new parking stations just outside the CBD. New privately operated parking stations, plus swift tram ride to the CBD just like from the Entercentre. Governments and the private sector working together to solve the City's traffic problems! Genius!

Did I seriously read someone claim the O-Bahn is a failure because no one else has called their guided busway system an O-Bahn

Ben wrote:I had confirmation today from DPTI that works start in July and the first tram service is scheduled to start in December this year.

Nice, but with due respect...who told you that?
There is nothing on their web site and there are no tenders or quotes open to the public or already closed/awarded…at least I can’t find any.

The additional trams will shortly be shipped from Madrid to Australia(probably Melbourne-then road to Adelaide). Contracts for both extensions have already been let. It is correct that work is scheduled to commence in July,with the opening planned for late December-probably around the time of the opening of the new O-Bahn tunnel.

Brucetiki wrote:Did I seriously read someone claim the O-Bahn is a failure because no one else has called their guided busway system an O-Bahn

Glad I'm not the only one who thought that was a stupid thing to say.

York Civil won the tender a few months back.

Norman wrote:York Civil won the tender a few months back.

Thank you.
Just found this...http://www.yorkcivil.com.au/project/tramline/

That website mentions the City South upgrade as well, so hopefully that will be done soon as well.

citywatcher wrote:Listen. There is no other obahn busway in the world. No one else bought it. Only us forty years ago. Similarly there are other guided busways in the world tried with similar results. It was a novelty that failed hence there are not many examples of them and they have been all but put out of business by trams. Can you split those hairs or is critical thinking not possible for you.

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

If the obahn was being built with the intention of making money from selling it internationally you might have a point.

Given that it isn't, whether or not other cities are using the identical system is irrelevant.

Inner city I definitely prefer trams. However the strength of the obahn comes from allowing outer suburban access into the city in good time.

Nort wrote: If the obahn was being built with the intention of making money from selling it internationally you might have a point.

The 0-Bahn concept comes from Germany (hence the German sounding name, "bahn" - German for train, I have no idea what the "O" stands for)

I can not remember whether the South Australian government "bought" the concept from Germany in 1979 or whether they just copied something they saw in West Germany at the time.

O stands for Omnibus, which is the German long form of bus. So it literally means Bus Train.

And, yes, it infuriates me when people spell it O'Bahn. No, it's not Irish, thank you.

Nort wrote:

citywatcher wrote:Listen. There is no other obahn busway in the world. No one else bought it. Only us forty years ago. Similarly there are other guided busways in the world tried with similar results. It was a novelty that failed hence there are not many examples of them and they have been all but put out of business by trams. Can you split those hairs or is critical thinking not possible for you.

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

If the obahn was being built with the intention of making money from selling it internationally you might have a point.

Given that it isn't, whether or not other cities are using the identical system is irrelevant.

Inner city I definitely prefer trams. However the strength of the obahn comes from allowing outer suburban access into the city in good time.

Separated infrastructure is a key part of a bus rapid transit system. Most systems achieve that with bus lanes and traffic light priority but we didn't already have a road along the Torrens.

bits wrote: There is theory about price differences, theory about maintenance costs, theory about better rides, lots of untested theories about why we should buy an alternative tram model.

Let me break it down for you..

Tram type 1 uses engine 1 & systems configuration 1 and takes 35 hours of routine maintenance.
Tram type 2 uses engine 2 & systems configuration 2 and takes 50 hours of routine maintenance.

Tram type 1 uses Australian components that are specific to it and similar trams from the same manufacturer.
Tram type 2 uses German components that are specific to it and similar trams from the same manufacturer.

Components from Tram type 1 are cheaper then components from Tram type 2. Tram type 1's cheaper components are not compatible with Tram type 2(and vice versa).

What if Tram type 1 uses a different air conditioning system to Tram type 2? What if one air conditioning system requires more regular maintenance and servicing than the other? That adds to costs. That's just one specific example.

If you don't believe me, then go ask the ADF why they are replacing multiple classes of vessels of different types, with one multi role vessel that can be outfitted for the various roles of the ships it will be replacing.

rev wrote:

bits wrote: There is theory about price differences, theory about maintenance costs, theory about better rides, lots of untested theories about why we should buy an alternative tram model.

Let me break it down for you..

Tram type 1 uses engine 1 & systems configuration 1 and takes 35 hours of routine maintenance.
Tram type 2 uses engine 2 & systems configuration 2 and takes 50 hours of routine maintenance.

Tram type 1 uses Australian components that are specific to it and similar trams from the same manufacturer.
Tram type 2 uses German components that are specific to it and similar trams from the same manufacturer.

Components from Tram type 1 are cheaper then components from Tram type 2. Tram type 1's cheaper components are not compatible with Tram type 2(and vice versa).

What if Tram type 1 uses a different air conditioning system to Tram type 2? What if one air conditioning system requires more regular maintenance and servicing than the other? That adds to costs. That's just one specific example.

If you don't believe me, then go ask the ADF why they are replacing multiple classes of vessels of different types, with one multi role vessel that can be outfitted for the various roles of the ships it will be replacing.

That's pretty much the usual approach rev. Considering it is pretty much a universally accepted approach, I'm wondering if maybe bits had something else in mind when talking about untested theories?

Perhaps bits could flesh out exactly what he meant?