News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[AG]

On the plan

Its a concept design, not a plan. Its intention is to give the tenderers and the public a very, very rough idea what the department had in mind, without spending too much time or effort on detail. There is typically a far more extensive process to follow before reaching a detailed design.

The detailed design is also a function of much deeper planning and engineering considerations, as well as input from parties including the successful contractor who may have a preferred methodology for construction, which would also impact the detailed design.

[mattwinter]

You seem to get quite a few people boarding trains there in the morning. For many it's a good station to park at if you're driving from somewhere like Daw Park / Cumberland Park / St Mary's. More parking than other stations around and with two train lines shorter wait times often. Quite popular for footy games.

To which station do you refer? Goodwood is tucked away from any meaningful road access, let alone parking.

I am in favour of taking the bicycle path over the tracks and building a tram station for connection to Glenelg. Without them, Goodwood is almost useless and a waste of stopping time, though the long steep stairs that appear on the concept drawing would be as bad as the present subway/ramp access unless there were to be lifts as well. They also appear only to access the shared bike/footpath and not the tram. That would be a major mistake were it to be built.

Maybe this thread should be divided and posts about Goodwood and Adelaide Showground transferred from the original discussion about Flinders Station, in which I would also like to join.

There's plenty of parking if you come up from the East Avenue side.

I'd like to see the stats, but I normally see quite a few using Goodwood each morning.

I'd like to see the interchange between the tram, but I get that it's probably not good value for money. Especially if an underground trail loop is on the cards in the next 20 years.

[Raider]

On the plan

Its a concept design, not a plan. Its intention is to give the tenderers and the public a very, very rough idea what the department had in mind, without spending too much time or effort on detail. There is typically a far more extensive process to follow before reaching a detailed design.

I guess I could have been a little more specific and said plan view rather than just plan.

[crawf]

This Government needs to stop focusing on other modes of transport (err trams) and completely finish the electrification and network overhaul, so things like this will never happen again.

Very poor planning to not have a backup circuit breaker.

Adelaide train line at risk of being suspended for weeks following major failure last month
9NEWS By 9NEWS
May 17, 2016: Electric train services on the Seaford Line are at risk of being halted for weeks after last month’s failure left the line running on a single rare component.
FTBA
Electric train services on Adelaide’s Seaford Line could be halted for weeks, after last month’s major failure left the line relying on a single, rare component.

9NEWS has learned the operation of the Seaford line is dependent on a single circuit breaker, a unique part for which there is no replacement available anywhere in the world.

The South Australian Minister for Transport and Infrastructure Stephen Mullighan has admitted that in the absence of a backup circuit breaker, another failure would have a much bigger impact on the rail network, stopping the train line indefinitely.

“It could be a period of some time, but we don't have an estimate on that,” he said.

“It certainly will be many days, but whether it's a period of weeks, we just don't have that information.”

The state government is working on contingency plans, which would either involve substitute buses – used during last month’s 36-hour stoppage – or diesel trains, shifted over from other lines.

“We can provide a level of service, but we can't guarantee that there won't be any inconvenience to people,” Mr Mullighan said.

Services on the Seaford line came to a halt for 36 hours last month, after one of two circuit breakers at the Lonsdale substation mysteriously blew up.

Since then, the state government has been trying to obtain a replacement from manufacturer, Siemens.

Construction and testing requirements have resulted in a delay in the delivery of the replacement circuit breaker.

An investigation into what caused the circuit breaker to blow is underway.

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/0 ... XyXBwKo.99

[Waewick]

you just can't make this stuff up.

[rubberman]

you just can't make this stuff up.

That's true. However, this situation was predicted years ago by the Institution of Engineers, Australia when they begged and pleaded for governments to retain in house engineering expertise so that they could be informed customers for this sort of infrastructure.

Governments of both political persuasions ignored that advice from a professional body, and just like ignoring any professional advice, you get to experience the consequences. We got rid of public sector expertise in these areas, and now we don't know what we are buying in anything more than a superficial level. That de-skilling of the public sector was cheered on by most commentators in the media and public.

Well, we got what we were advised would happen. The only surprise is that it doesn't happen more often in the public arena. Of course, much more of this happens that we don't know about. For example, many consultants in the private sector complain that engagement briefs for work are ill defined and don't provide enough information for them to do a good job. This leads to those consultants having to pad their prices to cover themselves against the government changing their minds, or project scope. It's rife. It also leads to manufacturers supplying stuff that looks good, but really is second quality or poor technology.

But hey, we got what we wanted.

[Waewick]

you just can't make this stuff up.

That's true. However, this situation was predicted years ago by the Institution of Engineers, Australia when they begged and pleaded for governments to retain in house engineering expertise so that they could be informed customers for this sort of infrastructure.

Governments of both political persuasions ignored that advice from a professional body, and just like ignoring any professional advice, you get to experience the consequences. We got rid of public sector expertise in these areas, and now we don't know what we are buying in anything more than a superficial level. That de-skilling of the public sector was cheered on by most commentators in the media and public.

Well, we got what we were advised would happen. The only surprise is that it doesn't happen more often in the public arena. Of course, much more of this happens that we don't know about. For example, many consultants in the private sector complain that engagement briefs for work are ill defined and don't provide enough information for them to do a good job. This leads to those consultants having to pad their prices to cover themselves against the government changing their minds, or project scope. It's rife. It also leads to manufacturers supplying stuff that looks good, but really is second quality or poor technology.

But hey, we got what we wanted.

I wasn't aware of all that. hardly suprising.

[claybro]

Even aside from keeping a co of engineers within government, it's not like electric trains are new technology. Melbourne and Sydney have run them for nearly a century, brisbane and Perth both fully electrified in the last 30 years. It's not like there is no expertise a short plane ride away. Same as the trams. We import mega expensive, sometimes incompatible tech from Europe, when there is fully functioning tram system 700km up the road in Melbourne, where incidentally they can still manufacture their own trams. Never mind about submarines, how about funding a tram and train industry in SA based on initially substantial upgrades to the adelaide system, and supplying interstate systems, using Whyalla steel.?

[rubberman]

Even aside from keeping a co of engineers within government, it's not like electric trains are new technology. Melbourne and Sydney have run them for nearly a century, brisbane and Perth both fully electrified in the last 30 years. It's not like there is no expertise a short plane ride away. Same as the trams. We import mega expensive, sometimes incompatible tech from Europe, when there is fully functioning tram system 700km up the road in Melbourne, where incidentally they can still manufacture their own trams. Never mind about submarines, how about funding a tram and train industry in SA based on initially substantial upgrades to the adelaide system, and supplying interstate systems, using Whyalla steel.?

That's all true to some extent. However, you have to know that you don't know something in order to recognise a problem and seek a solution. So, yes, if the government here recognised the various design defects in the tram and train systems, they might be moved to do something about it. This saga with the circuit breaker is just the last in a long list of symptoms of the underlying issue: government has lost the capacity to evaluate such things. It has lost the ability to assess the capability of consultants, or give them good briefs. So, they think centre island platforms for trams are ok, or single critical components are ok, etc. They don't know how these things are a problem, until it blows up. So, how would they recognise the need to get on a plane to seek help? How would they recognise good advice, given that Melbourne too, has lost much expertise?

[claybro]

Yea but surely they didn't go to a bunch of flinders university students and say" design us train set". They must have called for tenders from presumably notable rail construction company's, at which point they were surely having to provide details of previous work, and like mentioned previously, whoever in the government process needed only to travel to Melbourne and ask their experience, or perth for a more relevant example of recent upgrades. It all smacks of a well known Simpsons episode.

[rubberman]

Yea but surely they didn't go to a bunch of flinders university students and say" design us train set". They must have called for tenders from presumably notable rail construction company's, at which point they were surely having to provide details of previous work, and like mentioned previously, whoever in the government process needed only to travel to Melbourne and ask their experience, or perth for a more relevant example of recent upgrades. It all smacks of a well known Simpsons episode.

Claybro, is is pretty much that bad. Sure they sought tenders for the design. But they have zero, repeat zero ability to assess those tenders technically. They have zero ability to monitor progress technically.

This is not merely my opinion. It has been repeatedly pointed out to governments over the past ten years by everyone from the Institution of Engineers, the Australian National Audit Office, Infrastructure Australia, the Reserve Bank even ffs.

The problem is encapsulated in you query really. Most people think it's just a matter of employing a contractor, or going interstate to ask a few questions. It isn't. The capability to manage this sort of project takes at least ten years to work up. And we've lost it.

Well, we got rid of that expertise, and now we're paying for it. Yep, it's like the Simpsons, and it's the taxpayers who got rid of in house expertise in technical management who are Homer. Stay tuned, there's plenty more episodes coming our way.

[mawsonguy]

It is even worse than not having technically competent people in government. Modern Australian goverments are structured so that no-one wants to, or is able to, make a decission. I suggest that you all read "The Crisis in Decision-Making" (http://www.lexscripta.com/articles/crisis.html) which was an address by the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry into the Bundaberg Hospital (remember Dr Death aka Dr Patel?). Absolutely riveting, and depressing, stuff.

[claybro]

Well, given SA is about to have a major part in building billions of dollars worth of sea warfare equipment, the state needs to get its act together and quickly. If we can build subs, then surely what amounts to a toy train set when looked at in international terms should be a no brainer. Get Some independent experts in, pay them well, and build a functioning system from the ground up. We have the raw materials, the land, electricity, a readymade market. Why is this so hard?

[rubberman]

Well, given SA is about to have a major part in building billions of dollars worth of sea warfare equipment, the state needs to get its act together and quickly. If we can build subs, then surely what amounts to a toy train set when looked at in international terms should be a no brainer. Get Some independent experts in, pay them well, and build a functioning system from the ground up. We have the raw materials, the land, electricity, a readymade market. Why is this so hard?

It's hard because if you don't know enough you can't know which "independent experts" you should engage. It's hard because it takes 5-10 years to develop that knowledge. You can't just take someone off building a submarine, as complex as that may be, and have them design an electric railway. There was a reason why it took four years of uni and another four or five to become an experienced generalist engineer, and then more to become a specialist. When SA decided to build its water treatment plants, it took 15 years to develop the expertise. Fifteen. Years. The French and British are building tram systems, but they are still re-learning stuff their grandfathers forgot because of technical memory loss from the 50s and 60s. So, would you choose French or Brit consultants? So they can learn at our expense? If not them, who? On what basis could we legally exclude them? If we retained the technical expertise, maybe. OTOH, for electric trains, they are good.

It's nowhere near as easy as people seem to think.

Edit: Actually, the Government did exactly what you said they should. The electrification was done by getting independent experts in and paying them well. I'm not having a go at you, but I really think that repeating the process is merely going to get the same outcome.

BTW, SA had the best water treatment design team in Australia (our water was so bad, they had to be). "Expert consultants" used to come here to pinch our ideas. We could have had an export industry based on that. Nope. It was disbanded for ideological reasons. "We can buy that expertise in when we need it". Ha! So much for investing in value added niche industry. Now we buy Spanish desalination plants for double the cost, when we could have been exporting the other way.

[Waewick]

Well, given SA is about to have a major part in building billions of dollars worth of sea warfare equipment, the state needs to get its act together and quickly. If we can build subs, then surely what amounts to a toy train set when looked at in international terms should be a no brainer. Get Some independent experts in, pay them well, and build a functioning system from the ground up. We have the raw materials, the land, electricity, a readymade market. Why is this so hard?

Mainly because we haven't built the ships yet. I think ours original ones are still getting repaired.