News & Discussion: Trams

[Llessur2002]

Will right-hand tram project proceed? South Australian Transport Minister waiting on engineer’s report

TRANSPORT Minister Stephan Knoll says a right-hand tram turn from King William St onto North Tce is still being vigorously pursued by the State Government.

But he has admitted the future of the project could depend on the findings of an engineering report, due to be presented to the State Government in October.

On FIVEaa radio this morning Mr Knoll said the State Government was waiting for engineering advice to help it determine next steps for the problem-plagued tram extension.

“I think it would be silly of us to not heed the engineering advice that we receive,” Mr Knoll said.

“Certainly the decision that we took in Opposition as an election commitment, we want to move forward with that, but we’re not silly enough to ignore the experts.

“We’ll wait to hear that advice.

“We don’t know what this engineering advice is going to turn up and I don’t want to presuppose what they might say.”

The Minister’s comments came after a fault on current line on Monday night caused a tram to become stuck night near the North Tce and King William St intersection.

Labor transport and infrastructure spokesman Tom Koutsantonis said the State Government had to tell the public whether every fault found on the extension had been fixed.

“How much more inconvenience do the public have to put up with before someone

else is put in charge of this upgrade?” Mr Koutsantonis said.

Last week Mr Knoll announced that a construction fault from January, that led to a German expert flying into identify and fix it, had been resolved and driver training would start this week. A start date for passenger services is still not known.

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 4c40d7e637

[timtam20292]

FFS just put the right hand turn to rest and focus on getting services up and running.

[Waewick]

FFS just put the right hand turn to rest and focus on getting services up and running.

I'd say that is two very different teams of people to do these things.

[Llessur2002]

The Libs never intended to put a right-hand turn in here as even they can see it is unnecessary. They were just tapping into the misguided/ignorant public outcry over the lack of right-hand turn that had been whipped up by inaccurate and sensationalist reporting in the Advertiser and InDaily. Anti-tram editors called for a right-hand turn, the sheep all bleated in response.

The engineering report will return the same outcome as the multiple engineering reports which would have been undertaken for this intersection under Labor - it is technically difficult, will require a major re-grading of the entire intersection and surrounding footpaths and is therefore not economically viable.

The Libs will wait for the outcome of the report, declare the project dead as they are the only party 'listening to the experts' and the sheep will happily swallow this line and bleat on about how it's great to have some grown-ups in charge making sensible decisions.

This was their plan all along. The right-hand turn will never happen.

Hopefully: a) Haese and co will continue to call for a North Adelaide extension to add value to their 88 O'Connell Street site and b) the Libs' developer mates will be whispering in their ears about how a city tram loop will spur a lot more lucrative construction on CBD sites which are not yet economically viable to develop.

[rubberman]

The Libs never intended to put a right-hand turn in here as even they can see it is unnecessary. They were just tapping into the misguided/ignorant public outcry over the lack of right-hand turn that had been whipped up by inaccurate and sensationalist reporting in the Advertiser and InDaily. Anti-tram editors called for a right-hand turn, the sheep all bleated in response.

The engineering report will return the same outcome as the multiple engineering reports which would have been undertaken for this intersection under Labor - it is technically difficult, will require a major re-grading of the entire intersection and surrounding footpaths and is therefore not economically viable.

The Libs will wait for the outcome of the report, declare the project dead as they are the only party 'listening to the experts' and the sheep will happily swallow this line and bleat on about how it's great to have some grown-ups in charge making sensible decisions.

This was their plan all along. The right-hand turn will never happen.

Hopefully: a) Haese and co will continue to call for a North Adelaide extension to add value to their 88 O'Connell Street site and b) the Libs' developer mates will be whispering in their ears about how a city tram loop will spur a lot more lucrative construction on CBD sites which are not yet economically viable to develop.

A couple of things. There was a grand union at that intersection from 1909 to 1958, with no major earthworks required. The curves were much tighter. There's a grand union in Melbourne at the Balaclava junction. It's a much narrower intersecrion than North Tce/King Wm. intersection, and modern trams get round it ok.

So, while I am in the group that thinks the right turn is a dopey idea, I also have grave reservations about the engineering advice that has led to some really expensive outcomes/proposals for trams in Adelaide so far.

These extra costs have not improved the benefit of the project in any way. They also make the economics of trams look very bad, and give the Liberal Government every reason to look unfavorably on tram extensions.

In the case of the North Terrace extension, the benefit to cost ratio was 0.7. Uneconomic. However, maybe with tighter curves the intersection wouldn't have been as expensive. A few less of those lights at the termini, and who knows, maybe the benefit to cost ratio could have been much better.

It's almost as if someone within the bureaucracy doesn't want trams, and is deliberately increasing costs, and reducing benefits. That's certainly the outcome.

And if the North Terrace extension at $80m for a bit more than a km had a benefit to cost ratio of 0.7, then $100m per km to North Adelaide as suggested before the election is much worse.

To me, it looks like someone in DPTI hates trams.

[claybro]

A couple of things. There was a grand union at that intersection from 1909 to 1958, with no major earthworks required. The curves were much tighter. There's a grand union in Melbourne at the Balaclava junction. It's a much narrower intersecrion than North Tce/King Wm. intersection, and modern trams get round it ok.

So, while I am in the group that thinks the right turn is a dopey idea, I also have grave reservations about the engineering advice that has led to some really expensive outcomes/proposals for trams in Adelaide so far.

These extra costs have not improved the benefit of the project in any way. They also make the economics of trams look very bad, and give the Liberal Government every reason to look unfavorably on tram extensions.

In the case of the North Terrace extension, the benefit to cost ratio was 0.7. Uneconomic. However, maybe with tighter curves the intersection wouldn't have been as expensive. A few less of those lights at the termini, and who knows, maybe the benefit to cost ratio could have been much better.

It's almost as if someone within the bureaucracy doesn't want trams, and is deliberately increasing costs, and reducing benefits. That's certainly the outcome.

And if the North Terrace extension at $80m for a bit more than a km had a benefit to cost ratio of 0.7, then $100m per km to North Adelaide as suggested before the election is much worse.

To me, it looks like someone in DPTI hates trams.

It still has not been adequately explained to me why, when the government was planning to expand the tram system, they didn't send a group to Melbourne , to see what was required, place a piggy back order onto their trams manufacturing programme, lease some project managers from them with knowhow to set up a team here in Adelaide, and utilise the expertise and manufacturing already existing just 700km away. why are we flying experts in from Germany, buying/leasing trams from Germany/Spain, operating systems from wherever, with virtually no idea how to manage it all? Some have said there is no way the Victorians could have supplied the new trams in time...yet 5 years later, we get more trams from Europe, and have to fly in "experts" in from Germany when the signalling apparently malfunctions. Was 5 years not enough time for a couple of extra tram sets? Was it not enough time to investigate what operating system exists in Melbourne so if something goes wrong, there is someone literally up the road to sort it out? Surely the Victorian manufacturers could have scheduled Adelaides tiny order in, and lent us some experts for a few months, created a simpler system at a lower price?

[rubberman]

A couple of things. There was a grand union at that intersection from 1909 to 1958, with no major earthworks required. The curves were much tighter. There's a grand union in Melbourne at the Balaclava junction. It's a much narrower intersecrion than North Tce/King Wm. intersection, and modern trams get round it ok.

So, while I am in the group that thinks the right turn is a dopey idea, I also have grave reservations about the engineering advice that has led to some really expensive outcomes/proposals for trams in Adelaide so far.

These extra costs have not improved the benefit of the project in any way. They also make the economics of trams look very bad, and give the Liberal Government every reason to look unfavorably on tram extensions.

In the case of the North Terrace extension, the benefit to cost ratio was 0.7. Uneconomic. However, maybe with tighter curves the intersection wouldn't have been as expensive. A few less of those lights at the termini, and who knows, maybe the benefit to cost ratio could have been much better.

It's almost as if someone within the bureaucracy doesn't want trams, and is deliberately increasing costs, and reducing benefits. That's certainly the outcome.

And if the North Terrace extension at $80m for a bit more than a km had a benefit to cost ratio of 0.7, then $100m per km to North Adelaide as suggested before the election is much worse.

To me, it looks like someone in DPTI hates trams.

It still has not been adequately explained to me why, when the government was planning to expand the tram system, they didn't send a group to Melbourne , to see what was required, place a piggy back order onto their trams manufacturing programme, lease some project managers from them with knowhow to set up a team here in Adelaide, and utilise the expertise and manufacturing already existing just 700km away. why are we flying experts in from Germany, buying/leasing trams from Germany/Spain, operating systems from wherever, with virtually no idea how to manage it all? Some have said there is no way the Victorians could have supplied the new trams in time...yet 5 years later, we get more trams from Europe, and have to fly in "experts" in from Germany when the signalling apparently malfunctions. Was 5 years not enough time for a couple of extra tram sets? Was it not enough time to investigate what operating system exists in Melbourne so if something goes wrong, there is someone literally up the road to sort it out? Surely the Victorian manufacturers could have scheduled Adelaides tiny order in, and lent us some experts for a few months, created a simpler system at a lower price?

Yes. While I might quibble on the detail, I agree that these are obvious strategies.

It is because these strategies are obvious, and hugely cheaper, I am beginning to suspect deliberate sabotage by DPTI in order to kill off trams by making them uneconomic.

In addition to the above from claybro. Everywhere else in the world, track such as from West Terrace to the brewery would be laid in open ballast track. Hugely cheaper. It would only be laid in the far more expensive concrete if it were to be used by buses as well. However, this was deliberately squashed by using centre islands. Hugely increased cost, with reduced benefit. Deliberately designed that way.

Esch of these, including claybro's examples, by themselves might be classed as overkill through ignorance. However, a pattern of inflated expenses, and reduced benefits is clearly emerging as a deliberate policy.

Perhaps more heads at DPTI need to roll.

[PD2/20]

A couple of things. There was a grand union at that intersection from 1909 to 1958, with no major earthworks required. The curves were much tighter. There's a grand union in Melbourne at the Balaclava junction. It's a much narrower intersecrion than North Tce/King Wm. intersection, and modern trams get round it ok.

...

It still has not been adequately explained to me why, when the government was planning to expand the tram system, they didn't send a group to Melbourne , to see what was required, place a piggy back order onto their trams manufacturing programme, lease some project managers from them with knowhow to set up a team here in Adelaide, and utilise the expertise and manufacturing already existing just 700km away. why are we flying experts in from Germany, buying/leasing trams from Germany/Spain, operating systems from wherever, with virtually no idea how to manage it all? Some have said there is no way the Victorians could have supplied the new trams in time...yet 5 years later, we get more trams from Europe, and have to fly in "experts" in from Germany when the signalling apparently malfunctions. Was 5 years not enough time for a couple of extra tram sets? Was it not enough time to investigate what operating system exists in Melbourne so if something goes wrong, there is someone literally up the road to sort it out? Surely the Victorian manufacturers could have scheduled Adelaides tiny order in, and lent us some experts for a few months, created a simpler system at a lower price?

It should be noted that Adelaide's Flexity and original Citadis trams were ordered between 2004 and 2009. At that time the most recentl Australian-constructed trams in Melbourne were the 1980s design B class trams. In the early 2000s Melbourne has acquired European models from Allstom and Siemens. The current build of Bombardier E class trams were only selected in late 2010. I understand that Melbourne sources at least some of its point work components from Europe. In Australia in the last two or three decades there have not been a significant number of tramway suppliers.

With regard to Rubberman's comment I recall that some recent track work in Melbourne has seen the easing of some of the tighter curves.

[PD2/20]

...

To me, it looks like someone in DPTI hates trams.

In the last fifteen years we have only seen the replacement of the tram fleet, the substations, overhead equipment, track and the City extensions -- a complete system modernisation. It makes you think!

[rubberman]

A couple of things. There was a grand union at that intersection from 1909 to 1958, with no major earthworks required. The curves were much tighter. There's a grand union in Melbourne at the Balaclava junction. It's a much narrower intersecrion than North Tce/King Wm. intersection, and modern trams get round it ok.

...

It still has not been adequately explained to me why, when the government was planning to expand the tram system, they didn't send a group to Melbourne , to see what was required, place a piggy back order onto their trams manufacturing programme, lease some project managers from them with knowhow to set up a team here in Adelaide, and utilise the expertise and manufacturing already existing just 700km away. why are we flying experts in from Germany, buying/leasing trams from Germany/Spain, operating systems from wherever, with virtually no idea how to manage it all? Some have said there is no way the Victorians could have supplied the new trams in time...yet 5 years later, we get more trams from Europe, and have to fly in "experts" in from Germany when the signalling apparently malfunctions. Was 5 years not enough time for a couple of extra tram sets? Was it not enough time to investigate what operating system exists in Melbourne so if something goes wrong, there is someone literally up the road to sort it out? Surely the Victorian manufacturers could have scheduled Adelaides tiny order in, and lent us some experts for a few months, created a simpler system at a lower price?

It should be noted that Adelaide's Flexity and original Citadis trams were ordered between 2004 and 2009. At that time the most recentl Australian-constructed trams in Melbourne were the 1980s design B class trams. In the early 2000s Melbourne has acquired European models from Allstom and Siemens. The current build of Bombardier E class trams were only selected in late 2010. I understand that Melbourne sources at least some of its point work components from Europe. In Australia in the last two or three decades there have not been a significant number of tramway suppliers.

With regard to Rubberman's comment I recall that some recent track work in Melbourne has seen the easing of some of the tighter curves.

Melbourne, like Adelaide, bought some fixed bogie trams that eat up the rails on curves. Those trams are not going anywhere soon, so it's either ease the curves, or have uneconomic rail replacement. Check the wear on the curves in Victoria Square after 12 years to see what I mean.

However, given that selection of low floor swiveling bogie trams would have reduced the wear, it seems to me that having outrageously expensive track designs because of selection of outdated fixed bogies is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Track is hideously expensive. Tram selection should take that into account. And it's not like we even got a good deal for the Citadis in the first place at $6m per unit. See, every. single. decision. is one that makes the tram system more expensive than it should be.

PD20, what it makes me think is that the people and politicians wanted it, but DPTI has been working to thwart that. It would be unreasonable to expect perfection, and I don't. However, when you look at decisions which are always expensive and/or reduce benefits, then there's reason for scepticism.

[citywatcher]

Why do they pretend to persevere with this right hand turn
I guess they are looking to the engineers to say it's not feasible to let them off the hook I'm guessing

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

[ml69]

Why do they pretend to persevere with this right hand turn
I guess they are looking to the engineers to say it's not feasible to let them off the hook I'm guessing

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

That's exactly it I reckon.

[rev]

A couple of things. There was a grand union at that intersection from 1909 to 1958, with no major earthworks required. The curves were much tighter. There's a grand union in Melbourne at the Balaclava junction. It's a much narrower intersecrion than North Tce/King Wm. intersection, and modern trams get round it ok.

...

It still has not been adequately explained to me why, when the government was planning to expand the tram system, they didn't send a group to Melbourne , to see what was required, place a piggy back order onto their trams manufacturing programme, lease some project managers from them with knowhow to set up a team here in Adelaide, and utilise the expertise and manufacturing already existing just 700km away. why are we flying experts in from Germany, buying/leasing trams from Germany/Spain, operating systems from wherever, with virtually no idea how to manage it all? Some have said there is no way the Victorians could have supplied the new trams in time...yet 5 years later, we get more trams from Europe, and have to fly in "experts" in from Germany when the signalling apparently malfunctions. Was 5 years not enough time for a couple of extra tram sets? Was it not enough time to investigate what operating system exists in Melbourne so if something goes wrong, there is someone literally up the road to sort it out? Surely the Victorian manufacturers could have scheduled Adelaides tiny order in, and lent us some experts for a few months, created a simpler system at a lower price?

It should be noted that Adelaide's Flexity and original Citadis trams were ordered between 2004 and 2009. At that time the most recentl Australian-constructed trams in Melbourne were the 1980s design B class trams. In the early 2000s Melbourne has acquired European models from Allstom and Siemens. The current build of Bombardier E class trams were only selected in late 2010. I understand that Melbourne sources at least some of its point work components from Europe. In Australia in the last two or three decades there have not been a significant number of tramway suppliers.

With regard to Rubberman's comment I recall that some recent track work in Melbourne has seen the easing of some of the tighter curves.

Reading Wiki..
There's more then 36,000 trams operated globally.
There's 15,618 km of tram tracks in operation around the world, 850 km under construction and a further 2,350 km planned.

Why aren't we making trams in Australia for our own use and for export? There's clearly demand and a market for it that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. 36,000 trams in operation around the world. They aren't cheap. How many are old and need replacing or will need it soon?
More importantly, with all the problems the trams we've bought have had, we could be designing and manufacturing them to be suitable to our conditions and needs not those of Europe.

[claybro]

Reading Wiki..
There's more then 36,000 trams operated globally.
There's 15,618 km of tram tracks in operation around the world, 850 km under construction and a further 2,350 km planned.

Why aren't we making trams in Australia for our own use and for export? There's clearly demand and a market for it that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. 36,000 trams in operation around the world. They aren't cheap. How many are old and need replacing or will need it soon?
More importantly, with all the problems the trams we've bought have had, we could be designing and manufacturing them to be suitable to our conditions and needs not those of Europe.

Correct. Even without export, the number of tram/light rail projects within Australia would provide enough work, let alone the existing network in Melbourne-one of the largest in the world. you can almost bet though, next extension, be it North Adelaide under this government or a resumption of a wider network when Labor are next in, we will still be back to begging for more surplus trams from Europe.

[rubberman]

Why do they pretend to persevere with this right hand turn
I guess they are looking to the engineers to say it's not feasible to let them off the hook I'm guessing

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

The media are starting to leak how "tough" Mr Marshall's first budget will be. Here's hoping the right turn will be among the "victims".