News & Discussion: Trams

[PeFe]

My feeling about the Riverside tram stop is that it was probably the "cheapest" option of getting the tram north of North Terrace during the King Wiliiam / North Terrace rebuild, allowing further extensions without the cost associated with the "grand union".

This still allows trams to service Adelaide Oval during game days, yes with a bit of a walk at the end (and what is wrong with that? Pre-Football Park ie before 1974, Adelaidians quite happily walked from the Victoria Square tram stop, or from Grenfell/Curie Sts to get to the football. And you know what, they were probably leaner people than today.....smoked too much, drank too much and ate "shit" food........but leaner.

Do I support the tram extension to North Adelaide?, Yes I do.

Do I support the right hand turn into North Terrace? No I don"t (waste of money, unnecessary route to the old RAH, increased traffic congestion at King William/North Terrace)

And as fot the new "Infrastructure Commisission"..... well it just sounds like the DPTI mk 2, so we will have 2 government bodies doing exactly the same thing, or if DPTI is stripped of all powers, they will still all be paid as public servants. And this is from the Liberals who constantly bleated about the size and efficiency of the public service whilst in opposition....and they woud do the exact opposite of what they promised, expand the government sector , duplicating bureaucracy.

[Haso]

If they extend the line until Oval it will be a pure political stunt... that extension by itself has not point as it can be used properly only for a few hours whenever something going on at the Oval. Also, there is no enough trams to pull out the crowd in a very short time. It will be interesting to see the business case.
If they build the right turn, we will need a very different traffic lights management otherwise we will have trams waiting for five minutes or more for their turn… giving total priority to trams will slow down the cars… and we know what that means.

I'm no fan of the Liberal approach to rail, but I think you're being a bit harsh. Labour built the line as far as the festival centre, so why then is extending it to AO in their first term deemed a political stunt? Also it has been clearly stated that the Libs do envisage it reaching North Adelaide at least, so it adds to the weight of that. Better than them just running the system down, to make a political point that the whole thing wS useless in the first place, which is not the vibe I am getting at present.

Thank you for your reply… and I don’t think that I am bit harsh. My understanding is/was that this small spur is done mainly because of the future and road works at the intersection… and now extending that for another 300 – 400 meters… but, if they commit to extend the line to NA than it might have some, again, some sense.

[rubberman]

The stops as of today 6th May.

20180506_134314_resized.jpg (371.86 KiB) Viewed 3243 times

20180506_133623_resized.jpg (440.92 KiB) Viewed 3243 times

20180506_132632_resized.jpg (533.15 KiB) Viewed 3243 times

University, Gawler Place and Riverside in that order.

Note that the Riverside stop is not even close to finished. I have to say that building the tram stops has been extremely slow. Four months and not finished. At this rate, maybe the North Terrace section will be opened by the end of May, but unless someone puts a rocket up the contractors, Riverside is a month behind that. Building tram stops is less complicated than building a house, so four months looks pretty dodgy. Too bad, since apart from the tram stops, I think this was managed well.

[English Electric]

.......... Note that the Riverside stop is not even close to finished. I have to say that building the tram stops has been extremely slow. Four months and not finished. At this rate, maybe the North Terrace section will be opened by the end of May, but unless someone puts a rocket up the contractors, Riverside is a month behind that. Building tram stops is less complicated than building a house, so four months looks pretty dodgy. Too bad, since apart from the tram stops, I think this was managed well.

I wonder if there's some other, less visible element of the tram extension that's caused the delay in commissioning?

Say, for example, late delivery of some hardware for the electric traction supply, or some component for detection of trams at traffic signals. And the delay in whatever that might be has prompted the project manager to say "no rush" to the stop construction contractors.

Like rubberman says, I find it hard to believe it takes so long to complete a bit of concreting, paving and simple steelwork at the tram stops, especially given new track, overhead and NT/KWS junction were executed quickly and to the published schedule.

Maybe I'm being too charitable with this question, and it's simply that some sub-contractors have negotiated payment by the hour plus no penalties for late completion.

[EBG]

I think both major political parties lost interest in the tram extensions after they were not opened the week before the election.
Ps I drove that puddle in rubberman's first picture above at roughly that time.

[how good is he]

Any chance that Marshall (as he has indicated is a no brainer) will announce the tram extension to Adelaide Oval or further (or right hand turn onto North Tce - which I hope gets dumped if it costs around a horrendous $37m) in the next month to keep the same contractors immediately commencing after they finish the existing work in the next 6 weeks? Or is it a long drawn out process with plans and possible ($10m quoted) engineering to the KW St bridge?

[rubberman]

Any chance that Marshall (as he has indicated is a no brainer) will announce the tram extension to Adelaide Oval or further (or right hand turn onto North Tce - which I hope gets dumped if it costs around a horrendous $37m) in the next month to keep the same contractors immediately commencing after they finish the existing work in the next 6 weeks? Or is it a long drawn out process with plans and possible ($10m quoted) engineering to the KW St bridge?

I would be very curious as to why any engineering would be required for the bridge. The bridge was designed for, and carried, coupled H cars. The axle load on an H is basically the same as a Flexity. (Which makes sense, since new tram manufacturers aren't going to have great sales if customers have to rebuild bridges everywhere).

So, has the bridge deteriorated? In which case, what about the other lanes? Are they safe?

[Bob]

If the Lib’s go ahead with an extension to North Adelaide they may as well consider going to the northern end of the Parklands having a final stop adjacent the Aquatic Centre in the section of Prospect Road between Barton Tce and Fitzroy Tce.

Reason being, if Adelaide does bid for the Commonwealth Games one day, an expanded or new Aquatic Centre similar to the one in Albert Park (Melbourne) would be required. Assuming the expansion, rebuild or new build would be eastwards, closer to the proposed tram line.

In the meantime the stop would service the existing Aquatic Centre (with a new footpath connecting) and the existing sporting fields.

An infrastructure project such as extending the tram line thru North Adelaide would be better if it was done in one hit, get the disruption out of the way and provide certainty to business, developers, residents and remove future arguments between elected or hoping to be elected state govt’s debating ‘how far this time around, the North Adelaide tram line should be extended’ in piece meal approaches, which just frustrates everyone plus costs more $$$ in the long run rather than one singe project

[claybro]

If the Lib’s go ahead with an extension to North Adelaide they may as well consider going to the northern end of the Parklands having a final stop adjacent the Aquatic Centre in the section of Prospect Road between Barton Tce and Fitzroy Tce.

Reason being, if Adelaide does bid for the Commonwealth Games one day, an expanded or new Aquatic Centre similar to the one in Albert Park (Melbourne) would be required. Assuming the expansion, rebuild or new build would be eastwards, closer to the proposed tram line.

In the meantime the stop would service the existing Aquatic Centre (with a new footpath connecting) and the existing sporting fields.

An infrastructure project such as extending the tram line thru North Adelaide would be better if it was done in one hit, get the disruption out of the way and provide certainty to business, developers, residents and remove future arguments between elected or hoping to be elected state govt’s debating ‘how far this time around, the North Adelaide tram line should be extended’ in piece meal approaches, which just frustrates everyone plus costs more $$$ in the long run rather than one singe project

Nice sentiment, but any Commonwealth games swimming would be at the state aquatic centre, located at Marion, where it should never have been built in the first place. I doubt the Adelaide Aquatic centre would factor in to any planning regarding a North Adelaide extension. More likely it might finish at the intersection adjacent to the Piccadilly Cinema.
Hey, at least were all still talking about this, as on past history, the Libs might just as easily have run the system down, and then point to the fact no one uses it. Hopefully that will not be the case.

[Patrick_27]

Any chance that Marshall (as he has indicated is a no brainer) will announce the tram extension to Adelaide Oval or further (or right hand turn onto North Tce - which I hope gets dumped if it costs around a horrendous $37m) in the next month to keep the same contractors immediately commencing after they finish the existing work in the next 6 weeks? Or is it a long drawn out process with plans and possible ($10m quoted) engineering to the KW St bridge?

I would be very curious as to why any engineering would be required for the bridge. The bridge was designed for, and carried, coupled H cars. The axle load on an H is basically the same as a Flexity. (Which makes sense, since new tram manufacturers aren't going to have great sales if customers have to rebuild bridges everywhere).

So, has the bridge deteriorated? In which case, what about the other lanes? Are they safe?

Because the bridge is now also carrying cars and trucks which means adding trams to that load adds considerable weight onto what the bridge could originally hold.

[Patrick_27]

If the Lib’s go ahead with an extension to North Adelaide they may as well consider going to the northern end of the Parklands having a final stop adjacent the Aquatic Centre in the section of Prospect Road between Barton Tce and Fitzroy Tce.

Reason being, if Adelaide does bid for the Commonwealth Games one day, an expanded or new Aquatic Centre similar to the one in Albert Park (Melbourne) would be required. Assuming the expansion, rebuild or new build would be eastwards, closer to the proposed tram line.

In the meantime the stop would service the existing Aquatic Centre (with a new footpath connecting) and the existing sporting fields.

An infrastructure project such as extending the tram line thru North Adelaide would be better if it was done in one hit, get the disruption out of the way and provide certainty to business, developers, residents and remove future arguments between elected or hoping to be elected state govt’s debating ‘how far this time around, the North Adelaide tram line should be extended’ in piece meal approaches, which just frustrates everyone plus costs more $$$ in the long run rather than one singe project

Nice sentiment, but any Commonwealth games swimming would be at the state aquatic centre, located at Marion, where it should never have been built in the first place. I doubt the Adelaide Aquatic centre would factor in to any planning regarding a North Adelaide extension. More likely it might finish at the intersection adjacent to the Piccadilly Cinema.
Hey, at least were all still talking about this, as on past history, the Libs might just as easily have run the system down, and then point to the fact no one uses it. Hopefully that will not be the case.

Further to Claybo's comment, IF the Aquatic Centre was used for a Commonwealth Games, having caught the G10 bus many a time to the centre, the best way to get there is from the stop at the end of O'Connell Street which runs diagonally through the parkland there straight to the centre, so if a tram terminated at the end of O'Connell Street, it would still adequately service the centre, better than it would having a stop at the fringe of the parklands.

[rubberman]

Any chance that Marshall (as he has indicated is a no brainer) will announce the tram extension to Adelaide Oval or further (or right hand turn onto North Tce - which I hope gets dumped if it costs around a horrendous $37m) in the next month to keep the same contractors immediately commencing after they finish the existing work in the next 6 weeks? Or is it a long drawn out process with plans and possible ($10m quoted) engineering to the KW St bridge?

I would be very curious as to why any engineering would be required for the bridge. The bridge was designed for, and carried, coupled H cars. The axle load on an H is basically the same as a Flexity. (Which makes sense, since new tram manufacturers aren't going to have great sales if customers have to rebuild bridges everywhere).

So, has the bridge deteriorated? In which case, what about the other lanes? Are they safe?

Because the bridge is now also carrying cars and trucks which means adding trams to that load adds considerable weight onto what the bridge could originally hold.

The bridge was designed for cars and trucks as well. However, the middle lanes were designed specifically for trams, coupled H cars in fact. Plus, in those days cars and trucks were allowed on the tram lines. So, if no cars or trucks are allowed on the tramlines like is the case today, there's less load if anything. Now, if today's trucks and cars are too heavy for the car/truck/bus lanes, by all means those should be strengthened, but why should 9Tonne axle load trams running on a bridge with a 9Tonne design load need any strengthening?

Now, the answer may be that cars and trucks and buses are heavier. That's a good point. But why should a tram extension have to pay for bridge strengthening for car and truck lanes? In fact, if strengthening is required for trucks and buses, why isn't it being done now? It's either safe, or it's not, surely? The point is, the trams are not an extra load.

BTW. The DPTI website up till recently had the load standard for trams as being the same as for railcars. Really?

[SBD]

Any chance that Marshall (as he has indicated is a no brainer) will announce the tram extension to Adelaide Oval or further (or right hand turn onto North Tce - which I hope gets dumped if it costs around a horrendous $37m) in the next month to keep the same contractors immediately commencing after they finish the existing work in the next 6 weeks? Or is it a long drawn out process with plans and possible ($10m quoted) engineering to the KW St bridge?

I would be very curious as to why any engineering would be required for the bridge. The bridge was designed for, and carried, coupled H cars. The axle load on an H is basically the same as a Flexity. (Which makes sense, since new tram manufacturers aren't going to have great sales if customers have to rebuild bridges everywhere).

So, has the bridge deteriorated? In which case, what about the other lanes? Are they safe?

Because the bridge is now also carrying cars and trucks which means adding trams to that load adds considerable weight onto what the bridge could originally hold.

It is also possible that the road itself is heavier than it used to be, if the layers of asphalt have built up to provide a smoother or quieter ride over the bridge than was needed with a dirt surface and traffic at horse-speed.

[rubberman]

I would be very curious as to why any engineering would be required for the bridge. The bridge was designed for, and carried, coupled H cars. The axle load on an H is basically the same as a Flexity. (Which makes sense, since new tram manufacturers aren't going to have great sales if customers have to rebuild bridges everywhere).

So, has the bridge deteriorated? In which case, what about the other lanes? Are they safe?

Because the bridge is now also carrying cars and trucks which means adding trams to that load adds considerable weight onto what the bridge could originally hold.

It is also possible that the road itself is heavier than it used to be, if the layers of asphalt have built up to provide a smoother or quieter ride over the bridge than was needed with a dirt surface and traffic at horse-speed.

Maybe, but that would affect all traffic. However, I'm not sure, since the base of the original overhead supports are at the same level. (Those big granite uprights are for suspending tram overhead). In that case, the asphalt couldn't be that much deeper, or the gutters would be too shallow.

[[Shuz]]

If there's one thing I remember back when I worked at DPTI and asked questions about the trams and the operational requirements, they do run it like a heavy rail system, not a light rail. So expect that to be factored into bridge design.