News & Discussion: Trams

[rubberman]

That's why we pay more per km for tram extensions than Switzerland I guess. It's only money.

Is Switzerland tram extensions costs a standard that we should be comparing to?
Does Australia typically build comparable things cheaper than Switzerland except for tram extensions?

Tunnels, no.

Switzerland is generally a higher cost country. So, when things we build are more expensive, you'd want to ask why. I also pointed to Switzerland because it has extremely high technical standards.

[SouthAussie94]

Yeah. What I said was that if new poles were being installed because of new lighting requirements, that's fair enough, but if as some have stated, new poles were required to hold up the overhead, then there's a question of gold plating. Those poles were designed to hold up tramway overhead. That's the point.

They were designed to hold up tramway overhead 50+ years ago. Standards change. Just because they were suitable 50 years ago, doesn't mean they are suitable now. They've been pulled out, obviously for a reason, as someone who has all of the facts available has decided that they're not suitable for whatever reason. Again, they had all of the facts. I don't (and I presume that you don't either..)

It is hardly gold plating..

Yep. Let's not question our betters. They know what's best for us.

Mind you, centre island platforms, bib and bub Citadis trams and expensive track, don't give me confidence. But as you say, governments know better than us ordinary folk.

Do you work for DPTI, a contractor working on the tram extension, or are you otherwise involved in the tram extension?

If the answer to all of those is no, then you don't have all of the facts..

The answer to all of those questions for me is no. I fully admit that I don't have all the facts. Maybe the old poles would be suitable for the new trams, maybe not. Someone with access to all relevant information has made that decision. That someone isn't me (And I'm almost certain that you sit in the same category as me..)

As others have mentioned, they have found remains of old rail under North Terrace. Why don't they use this? It was suitable 50 years ago so it must surely be suitable now. It's gold plating if they don't use it....

[Norman]

It's only 3-4 poles guys. Hardly breaking the bank here.

[crawf]

It's only 3-4 poles guys. Hardly breaking the bank here.

Plus they are ugly. I'm glad to see them gone.

[rubberman]

They were designed to hold up tramway overhead 50+ years ago. Standards change. Just because they were suitable 50 years ago, doesn't mean they are suitable now. They've been pulled out, obviously for a reason, as someone who has all of the facts available has decided that they're not suitable for whatever reason. Again, they had all of the facts. I don't (and I presume that you don't either..)

It is hardly gold plating..

Yep. Let's not question our betters. They know what's best for us.

Mind you, centre island platforms, bib and bub Citadis trams and expensive track, don't give me confidence. But as you say, governments know better than us ordinary folk.

Do you work for DPTI, a contractor working on the tram extension, or are you otherwise involved in the tram extension?

If the answer to all of those is no, then you don't have all of the facts..

The answer to all of those questions for me is no. I fully admit that I don't have all the facts. Maybe the old poles would be suitable for the new trams, maybe not. Someone with access to all relevant information has made that decision. That someone isn't me (And I'm almost certain that you sit in the same category as me..)

As others have mentioned, they have found remains of old rail under North Terrace. Why don't they use this? It was suitable 50 years ago so it must surely be suitable now. It's gold plating if they don't use it....

Well, the evidence from recent history is that our betters either don't have the facts, or they don't use them, so why shouldn't they be criticised?

They wrongly estimated patronage on the extension to City West, leading them to buy the bib and bub Citadis (fixed bogie designs were out of date a century ago), for a premium price. In addition they used centre island stops down North Terrace and Port Road. Centre island stops are a last resort, get out a bit and see how many such stops are used on professionally designed and run tramways. Not many. And for good reasons. There's more too.

As for the rail in North Terrace? Wrong. There was none. Just a few sleepers. But suppose there had been? IF it was in good condition and in the right alignment and height, then why not recycle it? There's a whole movement based on recycling, rather than throwing perfectly good stuff away. Do we always have to junk stuff because it isn't shiny and new?

[SouthAussie94]

As for the rail in North Terrace? Wrong. There was none. Just a few sleepers. But suppose there had been? IF it was in good condition and in the right alignment and height, then why not recycle it? There's a whole movement based on recycling, rather than throwing perfectly good stuff away. Do we always have to junk stuff because it isn't shiny and new?

Okay, the sleepers happen to sit along the correct alignment. It's decided to reuse them, saving $x dollars from the construction cost. Five years later there is an accident and the sleepers are found to be at blame (or maybe the 1950's overhead poles caused it..). Can you imagine the absolute shit storm this would entail?

Centre Island stops, probably not the best idea from a flexibility and operational perspective. The Citadis trams, maybe not the best choice.

As with the overhead, I don't have all of the information about why they were chosen. I don't know what constraints they were working under at the time. Maybe this is a example of government/DPTI incompetence? Or maybe its just a case of delivering the best that they can whilst working within the constraints. I don't know the answer to that.

Not everything is this giant conspiracy theory or web of government incompetence. These are people who specialise in the work which they do and who are making decisions based on the information and advice they have available at the time. Maybe they could spend $x and go to Switzerland to see how they could save money. But how much would the Swiss advice cost? Is it guaranteed to save the project money, or does it just have the potential? If it isn't guaranteed, where is the cost-benefit analysis? Again imagine the headlines in The sAdvertiser if it was shown that the trip didn't save money... - "DPTI goes to the Swiss Alps looking for a Tram - Taxpayers dollars wasted".

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise the Department but unless you're involved in the project, you can't make a 100% valid critique of how they are performing.

[[Shuz]]

DPTI was and still is by far one of the most incompetent government departments ever.

[rubberman]

As for the rail in North Terrace? Wrong. There was none. Just a few sleepers. But suppose there had been? IF it was in good condition and in the right alignment and height, then why not recycle it? There's a whole movement based on recycling, rather than throwing perfectly good stuff away. Do we always have to junk stuff because it isn't shiny and new?

Okay, the sleepers happen to sit along the correct alignment. It's decided to reuse them, saving $x dollars from the construction cost. Five years later there is an accident and the sleepers are found to be at blame (or maybe the 1950's overhead poles caused it..). Can you imagine the absolute shit storm this would entail?

Centre Island stops, probably not the best idea from a flexibility and operational perspective. The Citadis trams, maybe not the best choice.

As with the overhead, I don't have all of the information about why they were chosen. I don't know what constraints they were working under at the time. Maybe this is a example of government/DPTI incompetence? Or maybe its just a case of delivering the best that they can whilst working within the constraints. I don't know the answer to that.

Not everything is this giant conspiracy theory or web of government incompetence. These are people who specialise in the work which they do and who are making decisions based on the information and advice they have available at the time. Maybe they could spend $x and go to Switzerland to see how they could save money. But how much would the Swiss advice cost? Is it guaranteed to save the project money, or does it just have the potential? If it isn't guaranteed, where is the cost-benefit analysis? Again imagine the headlines in The sAdvertiser if it was shown that the trip didn't save money... - "DPTI goes to the Swiss Alps looking for a Tram - Taxpayers dollars wasted".

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise the Department but unless you're involved in the project, you can't make a 100% valid critique of how they are performing.

I think you get the Agincourt award for drawing the longest bow today. My original comment was that maybe the poles had to be replaced because of lighting considerations, and I went on to say that given that those very same poles had been designed to hold up tram wires, and had held up tram wires, then we should ask a question.

Apparently, nobody is allowed to ask a perfectly reasonable question.

To suggest that someone cannot ask a perfectly reasonable question of government is plain silly.

As for the reasoning that we can't send people overseas to check on what world's best practice is? Really? Sir William Goodman did it. That's one of the functions of government to manage. And, frankly, if DPTI, doesn't even know enough to put up a business case, they certainly don't know enough to design and build a tram line. Since they actually have done that, I think they could manage a compelling business case. In the end, it seems I have more confidence in DPTI than you. One thing is certain, we aren't going to get value for money trying to reinvent the wheel.

[rubberman]

It's only 3-4 poles guys. Hardly breaking the bank here.

Quite true.

The real problem is this: if we are talking of building a whole network though, that's a couple of billion dollars. (Projects always end up overspent). Thus, if we are going to spend a couple of billion, the difference between good practice and average practice might be $20m per kilometer. So, do we let ourselves drift into average practice, sub-par Citadis from Madrid? More centre islands? Expensive track? Unnecessary signalling? Low speeds? And all for more money than we need to pay?

The difference in cost alone would pay for an extensive bikeway network of world class, for example, and the trams would be faster and more comfortable.

Sure, for a piddly 1km extension, it's not worth the heat. But each little extension, each future Citadis we buy, we just bake these inefficiencies into our system. Then when it comes time to spend our billions, so too will that baked in inefficiency hurt us.

SA Government should send a team to look at Germany, Poland, Switzerland and the Czech Republic to see how it's done. The others, France, the UK, the USA, are all like us, re-inventing the wheel.

Edit: I would add that in applying to the Federal Government for part funding, a demonstration that SA had done a lot of investigation into the best value for money track and trams and construction techniques, so that economic analysis was robust, would go a long way to getting approval. How SA could do that investigation without looking at overseas best practice beats me.

[fishinajar]

The old tram line ran older street car style trams [don't shoot me], we now run modern light rail trams. The requirements on the rail and overheads I would expect would be different. Also the old track under the road I believe is actually only the old sleepers, not the track itself. Either way I'm sure its all fairly rotted and rusted by now. As others have said, the amount of time, money and effort to determine if and how we can use a few old elements, and the risk of doing so, hardly seem worth it. Kudos to the council for installing light poles that can be used to string up overheads though. Lets not forget the savings that have been made there.

[rubberman]

The old tram line ran older street car style trams [don't shoot me], we now run modern light rail trams. The requirements on the rail and overheads I would expect would be different. Also the old track under the road I believe is actually only the old sleepers, not the track itself. Either way I'm sure its all fairly rotted and rusted by now. As others have said, the amount of time, money and effort to determine if and how we can use a few old elements, and the risk of doing so, hardly seem worth it. Kudos to the council for installing light poles that can be used to string up overheads though. Lets not forget the savings that have been made there.

Hi, the Flexitys are modern. The Citadis has a modern body, but the fixed bogies are NOT modern. That was outdated a century ago. Modern trams can run just as fast as older ones, and more comfortably.

[Ben]

2 lanes have been fenced off on the southern side of North Terrace from Pulteney to Frome, there is bunting up and this looks semi permanent.

[SBD]

Most of the light poles between Frome Street and East Terrace on the southern side of North Terrace have been removed.

Interestingly, those poles were actually used for holding up the span wires for the MTT trams down North Terrace.

I wonder if anyone thought to test them to see if they could be recycled for...holding up span wires.

Is the current overhead wire specification for pantograph trams the same as it was (in particular weight and wind cross-section) for the old trams which used trolley poles? I don't recall if the overheads or poles were changed when the trams were altered from poles to pantographs.

[rubberman]

Most of the light poles between Frome Street and East Terrace on the southern side of North Terrace have been removed.

Interestingly, those poles were actually used for holding up the span wires for the MTT trams down North Terrace.

I wonder if anyone thought to test them to see if they could be recycled for...holding up span wires.

Is the current overhead wire specification for pantograph trams the same as it was (in particular weight and wind cross-section) for the old trams which used trolley poles? I don't recall if the overheads or poles were changed when the trams were altered from poles to pantographs.

The overhead for pantographs supposedly should be designed for different standards. There are two aspects: the wire must be staggered from side to side so that the pans wear evenly, and there should be more support to stop pantographs bouncing. The pantographs on the H cars didn't bounce on the old overhead, and the pictures I've seen of old trams with pantographs in Europe don't show any particular differences from trolley pole standard overhead either. It might be a factor in high speed running...but we don't do that with our trams, especially in the city. So, you'd ask the question whether the extra expense was worth it. If it wasn't a problem for the H cars running flat out, why would it be a problem for trams dawdling about the city?

A bit of history: When Sir William Goodman converted the South Terrace railway into the Glenelg tram line, he re-used many of the old sleepers, and almost all of the old rail.

[Tonsley213]

Has anyone ever considered that maybe these have gone off for re conditioning....