News & Discussion: Trams

[Will409]

They are only resleepering two lines out of 6 (although one has already been worked on between 1999-2002). While I am all for more tramway extensions and would personally like to see both done at the same time, if I was to choose between either of the two on what needs to be worked on more urgently, then the heavy rail system wins hands down. Get the Noarlunga line done first because of the very heavy traffic carried on it as well as the soft nature of the earth after Brighton combined with some stiff gradients including a 1 in 35 between Brighton and Seacliff. Next would be the Belair line because the gradients and sharp curves which need a strong track base to get any sort of decent speed on it. After those two, the Gawler Central line needs a HUGE amount of work done.

Most of the ballast (though not all of it I have to admit) is 'dirty' in that there is a large amount of dirt in the ballast itself preventing good drainage which is just about the MOST IMPORTANT part of any track infrastructure. The large amounts of dirt and other crap prevents good drainage causing issues such as mud holes and rotten timber sleepers. The rails used on the Gawler Central line are also very old and I have found some lengths of 90lb/yard rail dating as far back as 1928 at Parafield on the UP line.

The maximum permissable speed on any part of the system is 90km/h but you would be very lucky to maintain that speed for any period of time on any part of the system. Need I explain more in detail?

Extend the trams out and as has been proved with the city extension, people will use it but please do something major and soon with the rail system.

[rubberman]

Hi The_Q915

If you want pix of the safety zones in King Wm St during the tram heyday, I can recommend the book "Those Turbulent Years" by Rob Lin. (I think it is still available in Dymocks) http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/scri ... :pc=PC_222

In that book there are a number of photos of King Wm St where the stops are clearly visible. It also has other stuff of interest for those who are tram gunzels.

You cannot see any on that photo you posted because; 1) the tram is hiding the northbound stop, and 2) the southbound stop is out of the photo on the North Terrace side of the intersection.

For your interest, the stops consisted of a set of white lines parallel to the tracks and the kerb, and at the end facing the flow of traffic, there was a plinth with a pole and lights on the top about two and a half metres high iirc. The tram museum at St Kilda has one of these plinths if you are interested.

[Ho Really]

Who said that the width of the two platforms combined would have to be the same width as the existing platform? Smartest way to reconfigure the platforms is to build the side platforms not directly opposite each other, but on the opposite sides of the intersection. That means trams heading south would stop at a platform before crossing the intersection (platform on the left rather than the right, would mean the track and platform would swap position), while northbound trams would also pull into a platform before crossing the same intersection. Access to both platforms wouldn't really be a problem in KWS because they already have scramble crossings.

Wouldn't it be better still if the trams stopped after crossing the intersection? This way right-turning traffic could use the tram lane. Any cars in front of the tram would turn and then the tram would go straight. Of course only one lane either direction can turn at once or else trams would collide with traffic turning from the opposite direction. At the King William/Hindley Street intersection this is simple as there is only a southbound right turn (into Hindley). At the other intersections have the turns done alternatively. It could be worked out easily.

Cheers

[Norman]

Who said that the width of the two platforms combined would have to be the same width as the existing platform? Smartest way to reconfigure the platforms is to build the side platforms not directly opposite each other, but on the opposite sides of the intersection. That means trams heading south would stop at a platform before crossing the intersection (platform on the left rather than the right, would mean the track and platform would swap position), while northbound trams would also pull into a platform before crossing the same intersection. Access to both platforms wouldn't really be a problem in KWS because they already have scramble crossings.

Wouldn't it be better still if the trams stopped after crossing the intersection? This way right-turning traffic could use the tram lane. Any cars in front of the tram would turn and then the tram would go straight. Of course only one lane either direction can turn at once or else trams would collide with traffic turning from the opposite direction. At the King William/Hindley Street intersection this is simple as there is only a southbound right turn (into Hindley). At the other intersections have the turns done alternatively. It could be worked out easily.

Cheers

This is already the case on the southern end of KWS, and it's a major pain because the cars bank up and the tram takes ages to move forward.

[jimmy_2486]

So will409. If we were to overhaul all our track to tip top shape, and electrified our network, what speeds could we achieve and how much time would we be saving?

[AG]

Who said that the width of the two platforms combined would have to be the same width as the existing platform? Smartest way to reconfigure the platforms is to build the side platforms not directly opposite each other, but on the opposite sides of the intersection. That means trams heading south would stop at a platform before crossing the intersection (platform on the left rather than the right, would mean the track and platform would swap position), while northbound trams would also pull into a platform before crossing the same intersection. Access to both platforms wouldn't really be a problem in KWS because they already have scramble crossings.

Wouldn't it be better still if the trams stopped after crossing the intersection? This way right-turning traffic could use the tram lane. Any cars in front of the tram would turn and then the tram would go straight. Of course only one lane either direction can turn at once or else trams would collide with traffic turning from the opposite direction. At the King William/Hindley Street intersection this is simple as there is only a southbound right turn (into Hindley). At the other intersections have the turns done alternatively. It could be worked out easily.

Cheers

That actually seems possible as well. I don't think cars turning right from opposite sides would collide into each other if designed properly, there's certain intersections in Melbourne where right turn lanes are placed on opposite approaches adjacent to the tram tracks. Even at intersections where right turns would cross each others pathes, the traffic signals could be used to allow right turning traffic from one approach at the beginning of a signal sequence, and then allowing traffic to turn right from the opposite approach at the end of the signal sequence.

I suppose another possibility is to continue to prevent right turns from KWS into Hindley, Pirie and Waymouth Streets, but realign the tracks at the Grenfell and Currie Street intersection where no platforms currently exist and allow right turns there (with new right turn lanes and traffic signals controlling the turns, U-turns permitted).

[Will409]

So will409. If we were to overhaul all our track to tip top shape, and electrified our network, what speeds could we achieve and how much time would we be saving?

The maximum speed really does need to be considered on a line by line basis with the following considerations:

-Curve radius
-Number of curves
-Super elevation
-Plaform clearances
-Topography (hilly vs flat)
-Population density (with related issues such as the number of catwalks on a section of track and good quality fencing).

Some sections on a particular line will also have different operating conditions to other sections. For example, while it may be possible to run trains at over 100km/h on the outer section of the Gawler Central line, it would be both impossible and dangerous to do the same on the Belair line. I'll list line by line what I think can be done. A potential time saving per line will be listed below the line 'wish list'.

Gawler Central
Because of the very flat and straight nature of the line (and also because what curves exist on the line are generally fairly light), it is possible to run trains at around 100km/h between North Adelaide and Smithfield with some super elevation of the curves closer to the city. Because of the 'open field' nature of a fair proportion of the line between Smithfield and Gawler, the possibility of running trains at speeds as high as 120km/h could be looked at. This would certainly make the rail trip compared to Main North Road a very attractive option. The section between Gawler and Gawler Central can remain the same because of the short section length, single track and has a couple of tightish curves. All freight services that do presently use the line should be limited to 80km/h to limit track pounding.

The only possible sticking points to having 100km/h imposed all the way from North Adelaide to Smithfield would be platform clearances at Dry Creek and Salisbury stations (both of which date from when the line opened in 1857). Because they were opened with the line, the track centres and platform/rollingstock clearances date from a time when the loading gauge (the size limits rollingstock can be built to) was smaller then what we have today. On the Smithfield - Gawler section, the points at Kudla station would either have to be rebuilt or removed.

Noarlunga Centre
Because the Noarlunga line being built later then most of the present Adelaide system (the Goodwood - Brighton section opened in c.1911/1912), it had to curve around a larger number of buildings that wouldn't have been there if it was built earlier so there are a number of sharp curves that do hamper the maximum speed in the inner suburban area.

However, the Mile End - Goodwood, Edwardstown - Oaklands and Lonsdale - Noarlunga Centre sections should certainly be considered for 100km/h running. While the Goodwood Jnc - Emerson section is dead straight, there are a few catwalks between stations which need field of vision improvements, the section being too short to really wannant higher speeds as well as a sharp curve after South Road. Because of the hilly nature of the line between Brighton and Lonsdale (as well as the presence of a few high level embankments), 100km/h running would not be advisable in my opinion but certainly upgrade the track so you can smootly run at the present maximum of 90km/h. If the extension to Seaford to does eventually go ahead in the future, aim to allow 100km/h running also.

Tonsley
Upgrade the track so trains can run at 80km/h atleast. The short station spacing and stopping all nature of services along the line doesn't really warrant speeds much beyond 80.

Outer Harbour
Because the track on this line has already been upgraded, it is easily possible to increase the speeds to 100km/h between Torrens Jnc and Alberton. The only possible issues would be station clearances at Bowden, Woodville and Alberton stations, all of which were built with the opening of the line in 1856. Because of the sharp curves and the Commerical Road viaduct between Alberton and Ethelton, you can't really do anything there. Between Ethelton and Midlunga (where the line turns to single track), given some super elevation it would be possible to run trains at around 95km/h. The present speed limit will remain after Midnlunga.

Grange
Between Woodville and Seaton Park, I would install 85-90km/h running but only if cat walks were improved and the field of vision was improved for both pedestrians and railcar drivers. Because of the East Grange golf course and the short section after East Grange station, there really isn't anything else that can be done to improve speed.

Belair
The Belair line is a tough one because of the hilly nature of the line combined with some very tough gradients (and then the NIMBY problem). However, it is still possible to cut some time off. Along with the Noarlunga line, upgrade the Mile End - Goodwood section to 100km/h as well as the Goodwood - Mitcham section to the same speed. Beyond Mitcham, there really isn't much that could be done because the gradient really starts to pick up. The curves however to Lynton aren't too sharp and with some super elevation can be upgraded to 85-90km/h tops uphill with the present 55km/h for downhill trains. The 1 in 45 gradients and 200m radius curves beyond kill any chances of further improvements.

Now for the times. Because the accelaration rates of electric trains are faster then diesel, I have listed 2 different times. Diesel in black, electric in blue. The what seems like a large gap in times is because you have to factor in stopping all services compared with express/limited services. Plus, having a large gap means I am more likely to get it right 'somewhere'

Gawler Central
5 - 10 minutes
8 - 18 minutes

Noarlunga Centre
4 - 10 minutes
6 - 14 minutes

Tonsley
2 - 5 minutes
3 - 7 minutes

Outer Harbour
5 - 9 minutes
6 - 12 minutes

Grange
2 - 4 minutes
3 - 6 minutes

Belair
3 - 6 minutes
5 - 9 minutes

I have tried to be conservative with these figures.

[AG]

Are you sure you haven't got diesel figures in blue, and electric in black? I suppose those times would be for maximum speeds on the line for trains running non-stop from one end of the line to the other as well?

[Will409]

The times are the total amount of minutes saved compared to the current timetable after rebuilding and rebuilding/electrification. Because there are so many different stopping patterns, I have only included the slowest vs fastest and I suppose you can imagine what some of the other services would be like. I deliberately looked for the fastest passenger carrying services on each line (there is an express service on weekends all the way from Belair to Adelaide non stop but that is technically only a depot transfer). A stopping all service will naturally take longer because of the constant braking and starting up again and the total time saved will be smaller then that of an express service which only needs to stop and then start fewer times. All times are based at maximum speed running.

I hope this explains everything.

[jimmy_2486]

So Gawler-Adelade in under half hour running express..... thats damn fast.

Thanks for that info, would be great if it could happen even though its not impossible.

[Ho Really]

Wouldn't it be better still if the trams stopped after crossing the intersection? This way right-turning traffic could use the tram lane. Any cars in front of the tram would turn and then the tram would go straight. Of course only one lane either direction can turn at once or else trams would collide with traffic turning from the opposite direction. At the King William/Hindley Street intersection this is simple as there is only a southbound right turn (into Hindley). At the other intersections have the turns done alternatively. It could be worked out easily.

This is already the case on the southern end of KWS, and it's a major pain because the cars bank up and the tram takes ages to move forward.

They need to install turning arrows if they want to improve things.

Cheers

[Hindley Street Alley]

Growing the tram track is a good idea, and I don't mind the idea of a city loop, but it's not the most urgent
tram project... because really, the city loop buses are doing a good job!!! the city loop buses are a good service.
Still if they can do a city tram loop... stop talking about it and do it.

But what would be more interesting as a next step would be a north adelaide line to o'connell street, and then one to the parade, norwood.

ALSO, if we need to add more trams to the glenelg line now (because apparently it's so popular...
Why not have the new trams and the old 'heritage' trams running at the same time? can we not increase the number of trams and reduce waiting time? or is there no need for this or is it not practical for some other reason?

[AG]

ALSO, if we need to add more trams to the glenelg line now (because apparently it's so popular...
Why not have the new trams and the old 'heritage' trams running at the same time? can we not increase the number of trams and reduce waiting time? or is there no need for this or is it not practical for some other reason?

TransAdelaide claims it is not able to run any more trams than it currently does during peak hour due to the limiting traffic flow to road users at level crossings on major roads such as South Road and Marion Road if they were to operate more frequently.

[Wayno]

tram-extension.JPG (71.48 KiB) Viewed 3709 times

How about having the next tram extension terminate on Port Rd near the South Rd intersection?

See the pikkie above. The RED line is the tram extension and the YELLOW bordered areas could be rezoned as "medium density residential accommodation" to allow 3-5 storey apartment/townhouse living. There's a lot of empty land and industrial worksites situated in this area (which in my opinion should be located elsewhere). The shops along Port Rd would blossom, the beautiful old pubs in the area would be inundated with patrons, and the trams would truly start to serve people other than those living along the glenelg line.

And as usual we could rely on the Govt to use its "Major Project Status" hammer to get things moving along quickly!!!

[muzzamo]

That doesn't seem like a bad idea at all