News & Discussion: Trams

[rubberman]

Or just Melbourne. Why source the world, when one of the largest and best systems in the world is just 700km away.

People asked that question when both Mr Goodman, and Mr Webb were appointed. Webb's appointment was particularly contentious, given he was a US citizen. I suggest that the results speak for themselves.

I'd also point out that it's pretty courageous to assert that nobody else in the world knows more than Melbourne. Are you certain that's the case? Yes, it's a big, well run system. But the best in the world? Nothing to learn from other systems carrying many more passengers? Brave call. Heroic.

One of the largest and one of the best... not necessarily the best. I've travelled on trams in both Germany and Prague. I don't see anything on those systems that is remarkably different to Melbourne. In fact some of the trams in Prague were pretty old, granted that was 7 years ago. Point being, the Melbourne system is probably most like what Adelaide aspires to. A mixture of road running, dedicated light rail corridor, tracks on ballast, tracks on concrete, tracks running through lawn.. they already have it all.. why travel to Germany or Prague or Poland? Why is our rolling stock from Germany and Spain? It is already all made just down the highway in Victoria.

The oldest service trams in Prague are of the same vintage as Melbourne Z class, but with much more modern electronic controls.

Oh, high speed points maybe, where Melbourne has its trams stop before points...every-single-time. Combined bus/tram corridors with Kassel curbs. Specialised rail welding and repair methods I certainly haven't seen in Australia. The Škoda 15T is a very good 100% low floor tram.Those are a few things I can think of from the top of my head. Melbourne does its track replacement quicker though. That's really good.

However, this notion that somehow we are the best in the world, and don't need to learn from anywhere else will kill trams here. The economic case is not good, and without a good economic case, other sectors seeking government money will rightly have higher priority. We cannot afford to miss one benefit, nor fail to eliminate unnecessary waste. Every benefit we miss, and every bit of unneeded expenditure just sets the economic case back further and further.

In the examples I gave above, there are benefits that Prague gets that we do not. If we used their methods in those areas, we could improve the economic case.

End point: we either ruthlessly seek out benefits, and eliminate costs to get the best chance of an economic case, or we sit back and declare we don't need to worry, and see other projects with better economic credentials get the funding.

While I have been a life long tram fan, I am also aware that other projects are worthy of funding, and if I have a choice, I would rather my tax dollars go to projects that are economic. If the offer is slow, outdated, excessive cost trams vs other worthy and economic projects, don't be surprised if most voters will do without trams.

We have to choose. Do it economically, or risk no trams, or mickey mouse extensions every couple of elections. That's the choice.

[rev]

Isn't the current problem centered around an untried part that's causing the electrocution fears? A part that's different to the one used on the existing parts of the tram line..

[claybro]

However, this notion that somehow we are the best in the world, and don't need to learn from anywhere else will kill trams here. The economic case is not good, and without a good economic case, other sectors seeking government money will rightly have higher priority. We cannot afford to miss one benefit, nor fail to eliminate unnecessary waste. Every benefit we miss, and every bit of unneeded expenditure just sets the economic case back further and further.

Once again, Melbourne I noted as ONE of the best tram systems in the word. Never said THE best in the world. Certainly there are things we could learn from the Cheqs or the Germans, but if it is fast construction, keeping costs down, with easily interchangeable and repairable parts, then surely sourcing them and expertise from Melbourne is the best option to achieve this? Not that my option matters, but I am yet to be convinced that sourcing specialised world best parts and systems from a single European model will not reduce costs, or construction time, or maintenance costs surely.

[rubberman]

However, this notion that somehow we are the best in the world, and don't need to learn from anywhere else will kill trams here. The economic case is not good, and without a good economic case, other sectors seeking government money will rightly have higher priority. We cannot afford to miss one benefit, nor fail to eliminate unnecessary waste. Every benefit we miss, and every bit of unneeded expenditure just sets the economic case back further and further.

Once again, Melbourne I noted as ONE of the best tram systems in the word. Never said THE best in the world. Certainly there are things we could learn from the Cheqs or the Germans, but if it is fast construction, keeping costs down, with easily interchangeable and repairable parts, then surely sourcing them and expertise from Melbourne is the best option to achieve this? Not that my option matters, but I am yet to be convinced that sourcing specialised world best parts and systems from a single European model will not reduce costs, or construction time, or maintenance costs surely.

One single example. In hard figures, the O Bahn tunnel was estimated to have a benefit justifying $160m.

Those places in Europe I mentioned all use combined bus/tram lanes in places. So, if the stretch from North Terrace to the Entertainment Centre had been designed with that in mind, the delays for Port and Grange Road buses could have been cut by a similar amount. By.Doing.What.They.Do.In.Europe.

That's $160m in benefits blown down the toilet.

How much would a review by an operator from Prague or Warsaw cost? $200k? $300k?

But nah. Let's just blow the whole cost of the extension down the toilet because we possibly couldn't learn anything from anyone outside Australia.

When people see this cavalier attitude to their money, Mr Marshall's slogans of "Labor's Waste and Mismanagement" ring true. People might not get the detail of cases like this, but if they get up on election Saturdays all grumpy because they spent 15 useless minutes getting from North Terrace to Manton Street, guess who they take it out on...and rightly so.

Labor blew $160m in benefits by not spending a few hundred thousand on getting in the right expertise. If Labor supporters hand wave that away, then Mr Marshall will get a second term. (Not to imply you are a Labor supporter, rather that this is precisely the sort of big ticket item that could have been a big benefit to the previous government, and they blew it through wilful ignorance).

[rev]

However, this notion that somehow we are the best in the world, and don't need to learn from anywhere else will kill trams here. The economic case is not good, and without a good economic case, other sectors seeking government money will rightly have higher priority. We cannot afford to miss one benefit, nor fail to eliminate unnecessary waste. Every benefit we miss, and every bit of unneeded expenditure just sets the economic case back further and further.

Once again, Melbourne I noted as ONE of the best tram systems in the word. Never said THE best in the world. Certainly there are things we could learn from the Cheqs or the Germans, but if it is fast construction, keeping costs down, with easily interchangeable and repairable parts, then surely sourcing them and expertise from Melbourne is the best option to achieve this? Not that my option matters, but I am yet to be convinced that sourcing specialised world best parts and systems from a single European model will not reduce costs, or construction time, or maintenance costs surely.

We very much should be producing and developing tram systems here in Australia, to provide for our own projects in Australia and to export to the rest of the world.
Having a common system, or common platform for trams(who cares what the exterior shell looks like), would absolutely keep costs down.
The problem is our governments have sold us out to globalization and corporations, instead of what's in the national interest.

The notion that "we cant" in Australia is preposterous and disgusting. The tiny mostly below sea level nation of the Netherlands is the second biggest agricultural exporter in the world. We need a can do, get it done attitude shift in Australia. Badly.

[rubberman]

However, this notion that somehow we are the best in the world, and don't need to learn from anywhere else will kill trams here. The economic case is not good, and without a good economic case, other sectors seeking government money will rightly have higher priority. We cannot afford to miss one benefit, nor fail to eliminate unnecessary waste. Every benefit we miss, and every bit of unneeded expenditure just sets the economic case back further and further.

Once again, Melbourne I noted as ONE of the best tram systems in the word. Never said THE best in the world. Certainly there are things we could learn from the Cheqs or the Germans, but if it is fast construction, keeping costs down, with easily interchangeable and repairable parts, then surely sourcing them and expertise from Melbourne is the best option to achieve this? Not that my option matters, but I am yet to be convinced that sourcing specialised world best parts and systems from a single European model will not reduce costs, or construction time, or maintenance costs surely.

We very much should be producing and developing tram systems here in Australia, to provide for our own projects in Australia and to export to the rest of the world.
Having a common system, or common platform for trams(who cares what the exterior shell looks like), would absolutely keep costs down.
The problem is our governments have sold us out to globalization and corporations, instead of what's in the national interest.

The notion that "we cant" in Australia is preposterous and disgusting. The tiny mostly below sea level nation of the Netherlands is the second biggest agricultural exporter in the world. We need a can do, get it done attitude shift in Australia. Badly.

Agree with you 100%.

However, in order to do that, we have to know what the competition is doing. The model for this was Japan in the early 1900s. They sent teams throughout the world learning and copying and finally improving on what the competition was doing. It was a hugely successful strategy compared to their previous stance of "We're the best and we don't have to learn anything from anyone else".

An example of where this could work for SA is in a tram track system called the BKV panel. It's dirt cheap and quick to lay. However, it's got some disadvantages that mean it's really only good for light traffic or temporary lines. I have looked at it, and think that the faults could be redesigned out of it. A nice job for UniSA or Uni of Adelaide Civil Engineering Depts. Huge payoff to SA if they could pull it off. European operators are too close to the problem. A new look at it here could literally reap hundreds of millions plus prestige for SA.

But then someone would have had to go over to Europe to identify the opportunity. Nah. We don't need to do that. We know it all, don't we.

[claybro]

An example of where this could work for SA is in a tram track system called the BKV panel. It's dirt cheap and quick to lay. However, it's got some disadvantages that mean it's really only good for light traffic or temporary lines. I have looked at it, and think that the faults could be redesigned out of it. A nice job for UniSA or Uni of Adelaide Civil Engineering Depts. Huge payoff to SA if they could pull it off. European operators are too close to the problem. A new look at it here could literally reap hundreds of millions plus prestige for SA.

I don't disagree that there are always R & D opportunities for SA, but getting an efficient and cost effective system at least up and running, is surely what is problematic here at present. And the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Getting experts in from Germany apparently did not prevent some of the problems with the latest extension. There don't seem to be these technical problems when renewing sections of the system in Melbourne. It may be "old fashioned", but it just works with minimal fuss. Just an observation.

[EBG]

I agree with Claybro Melbourne seems to operate with a minimum of fuss. They can replace entire intersections in less than a week simply because they can't afford to close parts of the system for long periods and there are many intersections with left and or right turns.

[EBG]

PS Adelaide should just buy 10 of the E 6000 trams from Melbourne (just add to the current order. ). They can go round existing corners and stop and start on hills without any ramps and have full low floors and come in your choice of colours.

[rubberman]

PS Adelaide should just buy 10 of the E 6000 trams from Melbourne (just add to the current order. ). They can go round existing corners and stop and start on hills without any ramps and have full low floors and come in your choice of colours.

Get rid of the Citadis and replace them with these. I'd be happy with that. Ta-ra-bombardier!

Sell the Citadis to Sydney. Cackle, cackle. Hehehe.

Only a slight problem in that Bombardier are pretty slow in producing them. Oh, and are they the right width?

[rev]

PS Adelaide should just buy 10 of the E 6000 trams from Melbourne (just add to the current order. ). They can go round existing corners and stop and start on hills without any ramps and have full low floors and come in your choice of colours.

Get rid of the Citadis and replace them with these. I'd be happy with that. Ta-ra-bombardier!

Sell the Citadis to Sydney. Cackle, cackle. Hehehe.

Only a slight problem in that Bombardier are pretty slow in producing them. Oh, and are they the right width?

Ta-ra bombardier? The E6000 is a flexity tram built by Bombardier.
The Citadis, the trams we got from Spain, are built by Alstom.
Both tram networks use the same standard gauge 1,435 mm track apparently. One of our flexitys even did trial runs on the Melbourne network.


Moving on...looking at the stats, to anyone who says there is no business case for more trams, to quote my biggest fan on here, "pull your head in"...in the 2016/17 financial year our little tram line had 9.26 million passengers. Not bad for a city of 1.3 million. Imagine if kept the our extensive tram network from the 1950's what the patronage would be with an updated modern fleet of trams and upgraded tram stops across the network. For the same period Melbourne's network had 204 million passengers.

[citywatcher]

However, this notion that somehow we are the best in the world, and don't need to learn from anywhere else will kill trams here. The economic case is not good, and without a good economic case, other sectors seeking government money will rightly have higher priority. We cannot afford to miss one benefit, nor fail to eliminate unnecessary waste. Every benefit we miss, and every bit of unneeded expenditure just sets the economic case back further and further.

Once again, Melbourne I noted as ONE of the best tram systems in the word. Never said THE best in the world. Certainly there are things we could learn from the Cheqs or the Germans, but if it is fast construction, keeping costs down, with easily interchangeable and repairable parts, then surely sourcing them and expertise from Melbourne is the best option to achieve this? Not that my option matters, but I am yet to be convinced that sourcing specialised world best parts and systems from a single European model will not reduce costs, or construction time, or maintenance costs surely.

One single example. In hard figures, the O Bahn tunnel was estimated to have a benefit justifying $160m.

Those places in Europe I mentioned all use combined bus/tram lanes in places. So, if the stretch from North Terrace to the Entertainment Centre had been designed with that in mind, the delays for Port and Grange Road buses could have been cut by a similar amount. By.Doing.What.They.Do.In.Europe.

That's $160m in benefits blown down the toilet.

How much would a review by an operator from Prague or Warsaw cost? $200k? $300k?

But nah. Let's just blow the whole cost of the extension down the toilet because we possibly couldn't learn anything from anyone outside Australia.

When people see this cavalier attitude to their money, Mr Marshall's slogans of "Labor's Waste and Mismanagement" ring true. People might not get the detail of cases like this, but if they get up on election Saturdays all grumpy because they spent 15 useless minutes getting from North Terrace to Manton Street, guess who they take it out on...and rightly so.

Labor blew $160m in benefits by not spending a few hundred thousand on getting in the right expertise. If Labor supporters hand wave that away, then Mr Marshall will get a second term. (Not to imply you are a Labor supporter, rather that this is precisely the sort of big ticket item that could have been a big benefit to the previous government, and they blew it through wilful ignorance).

Usual horseshit post

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

[1NEEDS2POST]

Only a slight problem in that Bombardier are pretty slow in producing them. Oh, and are they the right width?

Nope, we use a different loading gauge to Melbourne. That's not to say it can't be built to our standards. For example, the Citadis can be made 2.65 m wide for Melbourne or 2.4 m wide for Adelaide.

[rubberman]

Once again, Melbourne I noted as ONE of the best tram systems in the word. Never said THE best in the world. Certainly there are things we could learn from the Cheqs or the Germans, but if it is fast construction, keeping costs down, with easily interchangeable and repairable parts, then surely sourcing them and expertise from Melbourne is the best option to achieve this? Not that my option matters, but I am yet to be convinced that sourcing specialised world best parts and systems from a single European model will not reduce costs, or construction time, or maintenance costs surely.

One single example. In hard figures, the O Bahn tunnel was estimated to have a benefit justifying $160m.

Those places in Europe I mentioned all use combined bus/tram lanes in places. So, if the stretch from North Terrace to the Entertainment Centre had been designed with that in mind, the delays for Port and Grange Road buses could have been cut by a similar amount. By.Doing.What.They.Do.In.Europe.

That's $160m in benefits blown down the toilet.

How much would a review by an operator from Prague or Warsaw cost? $200k? $300k?

But nah. Let's just blow the whole cost of the extension down the toilet because we possibly couldn't learn anything from anyone outside Australia.

When people see this cavalier attitude to their money, Mr Marshall's slogans of "Labor's Waste and Mismanagement" ring true. People might not get the detail of cases like this, but if they get up on election Saturdays all grumpy because they spent 15 useless minutes getting from North Terrace to Manton Street, guess who they take it out on...and rightly so.

Labor blew $160m in benefits by not spending a few hundred thousand on getting in the right expertise. If Labor supporters hand wave that away, then Mr Marshall will get a second term. (Not to imply you are a Labor supporter, rather that this is precisely the sort of big ticket item that could have been a big benefit to the previous government, and they blew it through wilful ignorance).

Usual horseshit post

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Usual intelligent response.

[rubberman]

PS Adelaide should just buy 10 of the E 6000 trams from Melbourne (just add to the current order. ). They can go round existing corners and stop and start on hills without any ramps and have full low floors and come in your choice of colours.

Get rid of the Citadis and replace them with these. I'd be happy with that. Ta-ra-bombardier!

Sell the Citadis to Sydney. Cackle, cackle. Hehehe.

Only a slight problem in that Bombardier are pretty slow in producing them. Oh, and are they the right width?

Ta-ra bombardier? The E6000 is a flexity tram built by Bombardier.
The Citadis, the trams we got from Spain, are built by Alstom.
Both tram networks use the same standard gauge 1,435 mm track apparently. One of our flexitys even did trial runs on the Melbourne network.


Moving on...looking at the stats, to anyone who says there is no business case for more trams, to quote my biggest fan on here, "pull your head in"...in the 2016/17 financial year our little tram line had 9.26 million passengers. Not bad for a city of 1.3 million. Imagine if kept the our extensive tram network from the 1950's what the patronage would be with an updated modern fleet of trams and upgraded tram stops across the network. For the same period Melbourne's network had 204 million passengers.

When I said Ta-ra-Bombardier, I was referring to Bombardier replacing the Citadis, lol.

And yeah, I do know the gauges are the same... ...It was the body width I was not sure about.

As for the business case. Well, according to the official report to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the North Terrace extension had a benefit to cost ratio of only 0.7. The extension to North Adelaide is costing lots more per kilometre, so, you do the math.

Then, the incoming government has stated that it will only do the extension to North Adelaide if the business case stacks up.

So, do you think that a business case with a benefit to cost ratio of less than 0.7 stacks up? Realistically?

If there's to be the smallest chance of a tram to North Adelaide in the next four years, you have to boost the benefit and reduce the cost. If that doesn't happen, there's no extension. I don’t see it happening, because nobody is even trying to improve the design to make it economic. Nobody here, nobody in government, nobody in the public service, and the general public don't care all that much. Personally, I think it could be done, but nobody is interested in trying, so...shrug. Too bad, so sad.