News & Discussion: Trams

[rubberman]

They better make tram extensions North and East because the two stubs they've build on King William Street and North Terrace are useful only as attachment points for longer lines. Besides the Tram could make North Adelaide feel less like a ghost town.

On the other hand I sincerely hope they don't replace the Outer Harbor train with a tram. That would be ludicrous. It would mean the hundreds of millions they spent upgrading Torrens Junction and Bowden Station would be wasted.

Also having tracked vehicles running along Commercial Road has already been tried in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It caused massive traffic problems leading to the construction of the viaduct. If they replace the OH train with a train and have it run along the surface of Commercial Road it will cause the same traffic problems. We should be eliminating grade crossings, not creating more of them.

Why couldn't the tram use the Torrens Junction track? It goes over the railway at Goodwood, why not under it at Torrens Junction? That route would be quicker than using the existing tramline, allowing that to be used by Grange Road trams and Port Road buses.

[claybro]

They better make tram extensions North and East because the two stubs they've build on King William Street and North Terrace are useful only as attachment points for longer lines. Besides the Tram could make North Adelaide feel less like a ghost town.

On the other hand I sincerely hope they don't replace the Outer Harbor train with a tram. That would be ludicrous. It would mean the hundreds of millions they spent upgrading Torrens Junction and Bowden Station would be wasted.

Also having tracked vehicles running along Commercial Road has already been tried in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It caused massive traffic problems leading to the construction of the viaduct. If they replace the OH train with a train and have it run along the surface of Commercial Road it will cause the same traffic problems. We should be eliminating grade crossings, not creating more of them.

Why couldn't the tram use the Torrens Junction track? It goes over the railway at Goodwood, why not under it at Torrens Junction? That route would be quicker than using the existing tramline, allowing that to be used by Grange Road trams and Port Road buses.

Using the existing parklands corridor was firming as an option if OH converted to light rail in its last incarnation. There were so many thought bubbles put out for OH route by the last government I think we have all lost count. Bowden station could be easily modified to allow light rail, and the Torrens junction would present no problems as mentioned. Suffice to say, probably the only viable option now may be just converting the heavy rail to electric, which will make no noticeable difference in service or amenities of most of the line from its current diesel form until a CBD tunnel is operational. Unfortunately the Port road section of tramway is unsuitable for bus express lanes as for some reason it was built raised, to separate it from road traffic, when reserved lanes for trams would be just as effective, have cost less and also then versatile for use of express buses and emergency vehicles along that section of Port Road.

[rubberman]

They better make tram extensions North and East because the two stubs they've build on King William Street and North Terrace are useful only as attachment points for longer lines. Besides the Tram could make North Adelaide feel less like a ghost town.

On the other hand I sincerely hope they don't replace the Outer Harbor train with a tram. That would be ludicrous. It would mean the hundreds of millions they spent upgrading Torrens Junction and Bowden Station would be wasted.

Also having tracked vehicles running along Commercial Road has already been tried in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It caused massive traffic problems leading to the construction of the viaduct. If they replace the OH train with a train and have it run along the surface of Commercial Road it will cause the same traffic problems. We should be eliminating grade crossings, not creating more of them.

Why couldn't the tram use the Torrens Junction track? It goes over the railway at Goodwood, why not under it at Torrens Junction? That route would be quicker than using the existing tramline, allowing that to be used by Grange Road trams and Port Road buses.

Using the existing parklands corridor was firming as an option if OH converted to light rail in its last incarnation. There were so many thought bubbles put out for OH route by the last government I think we have all lost count. Bowden station could be easily modified to allow light rail, and the Torrens junction would present no problems as mentioned. Suffice to say, probably the only viable option now may be just converting the heavy rail to electric, which will make no noticeable difference in service or amenities of most of the line from its current diesel form until a CBD tunnel is operational. Unfortunately the Port road section of tramway is unsuitable for bus express lanes as for some reason it was built raised, to separate it from road traffic, when reserved lanes for trams would be just as effective, have cost less and also then versatile for use of express buses and emergency vehicles along that section of Port Road.

One of the reasons that I think most of the discussion about trams vs heavy rail to Outer Harbor is dreaming is that the existing diesel stock has plenty of life left. It makes little sense to spend money on anything on that line till those railcars come up for replacement. That might be 15 years away, or more. I cannot imagine spending anything till then.

At that point, there's the cost of railcars vs trams. Trams are vastly cheaper. The tram overhead is lighter and cheaper. Trams don't need as much signal equipment. However, new stops would need to be built, and the rail moved inwards. So, is the saving in vehicles, signalling and overhead offset by the cost of new stops and shifting that single rail? I haven't got a clue, and even if I did, technology changes in the next fifteen years might make present costings redundant anyway. Then there’s the question of extensions past Port Dock into Port Adelaide proper. Is that likely? Where would they go? Also, the Grange line. Keep it or not? Extend it or not? All these questions feed into a final decision to be made maybe 15 years from now.

[Mpol03]

As of now I think they should make Grange a tram line that ends at Woodville, to then transfer to Outer Harbour.
Have two rail tracks, as there seems to be room. One track goes to Grange and out to Henley (that could loop up with airport extension, if it were to go past the airport and to Henley Beach) the other could head to west lakes and loop up into Semaphore/Port Adelaide. All just random musings and pipe dreams. Would need to be worth it.

I did go into the West sales centre last weekend. The sales agent said they have left space for a tram extension to feed right into the heart of this new development. They said they had to when planning this development, though this doesn’t mean it will happen. The road into the development will however be wide enough to cater for it if they decide to proceed. So there must be some talk in the least of making the Grange line a tram line.

[RetroGamer87]

Why couldn't the tram use the Torrens Junction track?

Because that track is broad gauge and the trams are standard gauge. They won't build a dual gauge track either.

That route would be quicker than using the existing tramline, allowing that to be used by Grange Road trams and Port Road buses.

Faster routes that run separately from roads? It sounds like you're describing a heavy rail system. We already have one of those.

[rubberman]

Why couldn't the tram use the Torrens Junction track?

Because that track is broad gauge and the trams are standard gauge. They won't build a dual gauge track either.

That route would be quicker than using the existing tramline, allowing that to be used by Grange Road trams and Port Road buses.

Faster routes that run separately from roads? It sounds like you're describing a heavy rail system. We already have one of those.

They can build broad gauge bogies for railcars, but not for trams? Really? That's assuming it would be hard to regauge the Outer Harbor line.

The existing trams already run separately from cars down Port Road...and North Terrace.

Next, there's already commercially produced trams which can run 2km without overhead. Thus, a tram could run into Adelaide Railway station with no overhead required at all. This makes cheaper overhead, even more economic compared to heavy rail which would need overhead all the way. Now by 2030, or whenever the diesel railcars come up for renewal, it's quite possible that overhead for trams would be even less. If battery tech really developed, it might mean that most of the line could be wire free. At that point, heavy rail advocates would really have their work cut out. Still, that's pie in the sky atm.

[Westside]

The Torrens Junction was designed that it could be used for either scenario - light rail or heavy rail. The latest plan (a very loose one at that) is to route the OH line via War Memorial drive immediately after the Torrens Junction where it can then join the existing network at King William St. At least that’s the provision if it ever happened. The Torrens junction was mainly designed to benefit freight not passenger traffic, which it has done regardless of what happens to the OH line.

Without the Torrens Junction, the OH line entered ARS sandwiched between the Gawler and Seaford lines, so either way some amount of infrastructure was needed somewhere to get the line to join the existing network. As others had mentioned, linking the line at Bowden and having the LR battle each traffic light adds significant time to the journey and makes it far less viable. The Memorial Dr option goes somewhat to avoiding that.

Remember the Port Rd extension was originally planned to be able to join up to the OH line at Bowden, but nothing has come of that and now looks unlikely to be extended any time soon, unless it heads down Grange Rd. So who knows what will happen? All the long term plans I’ve seen are all just lines on map that seem to change with the wind.

[ginzahikari]

The Torrens Junction was designed that it could be used for either scenario - light rail or heavy rail. The latest plan (a very loose one at that) is to route the OH line via War Memorial drive immediately after the Torrens Junction where it can then join the existing network at King William St. At least that’s the provision if it ever happened. The Torrens junction was mainly designed to benefit freight not passenger traffic, which it has done regardless of what happens to the OH line.

Without the Torrens Junction, the OH line entered ARS sandwiched between the Gawler and Seaford lines, so either way some amount of infrastructure was needed somewhere to get the line to join the existing network. As others had mentioned, linking the line at Bowden and having the LR battle each traffic light adds significant time to the journey and makes it far less viable. The Memorial Dr option goes somewhat to avoiding that.

Remember the Port Rd extension was originally planned to be able to join up to the OH line at Bowden, but nothing has come of that and now looks unlikely to be extended any time soon, unless it heads down Grange Rd. So who knows what will happen? All the long term plans I’ve seen are all just lines on map that seem to change with the wind.

I thought the Port Rd extension was the second phase of the original Coast to Coast Light Rail, which links Glenelg to Port Adelaide via Port Rd instead of replacing the rail line.

[SRW]

I thought the Port Rd extension was the second phase of the original Coast to Coast Light Rail, which links Glenelg to Port Adelaide via Port Rd instead of replacing the rail line.

That vision actually involved running a tram-train to Port Adelaide and Semaphore via the Outer Harbour line. But I don't think it was ever mentioned again past the 2010 election. The later AdelLink vision involved Outer Harbour being either electrified heavy rail or converted light rail. No-one's seriously proposed running a tram all the way down Port Rd. In my mind, Labor locked in for heavy rail with the Port Dock spur.

[RetroGamer87]

Next, there's already commercially produced trams which can run 2km without overhead. Thus, a tram could run into Adelaide Railway station with no overhead required at all. This makes cheaper overhead, even more economic compared to heavy rail which would need overhead all the way.

Something tells me those trams which can run 2km without overhead cost more than the standard model. Not to mention the cost of lowering some of the platforms at Adelaide Railway Station to tram height. They can build broad gauge bogies for trams (assuming Bombardier takes custom orders) but how much would it cost to convert the entire tram network to broad gauge? This is starting to look looking expensive.

You said yourself that you haven't got a clue if the cheaper overhead for trams would be enough to offset the cost of of building new stops and moving the rails inwards. There's also the question of capacity. How many people can be carried.

[rubberman]

Next, there's already commercially produced trams which can run 2km without overhead. Thus, a tram could run into Adelaide Railway station with no overhead required at all. This makes cheaper overhead, even more economic compared to heavy rail which would need overhead all the way.

Something tells me those trams which can run 2km without overhead cost more than the standard model. Not to mention the cost of lowering some of the platforms at Adelaide Railway Station to tram height. They can build broad gauge bogies for trams (assuming Bombardier takes custom orders) but how much would it cost to convert the entire tram network to broad gauge? This is starting to look looking expensive.

You said yourself that you haven't got a clue if the cheaper overhead for trams would be enough to offset the cost of of building new stops and moving the rails inwards. There's also the question of capacity. How many people can be carried.

Well, yeah to all that, but without figures who can tell?

If there's some reason that people can say which way it will go in 10-15 years when the diesels come up for replacement, then I'd be happy to see the data.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. Really Rather, if someone thinks it's definitely going to go one way or another, or they WANT it to go one way or another, then if they don't have the figures to support their case either way, they are going to be mighty disappointed if things don't turn out the way they want. So, you could well be right...or wrong, but who knows?

[ml69]

We need an update to the ITLUP plan of 2013. It's been 5 years since the last update, and things have changed since then. New technologies have emerged. A change of government.

Have Infrastructure SA and DPTI work together (with Infrastructure SA leading) to update the plan.

The centrepiece of the 2013 ITLUP plan, the Adelink tram network, is in limbo with one tiny 1km section completed since then. 5 years later, we still have no idea what is happening with the Outer Harbor line FFS!!

Do what Perth have done with their METRONET plan. Then budget the funding accordingly. Not really hard.

[Goodsy]

We need an update to the ITLUP plan of 2013. It's been 5 years since the last update, and things have changed since then. New technologies have emerged. A change of government.

Have Infrastructure SA and DPTI work together (with Infrastructure SA leading) to update the plan.

The centrepiece of the 2013 ITLUP plan, the Adelink tram network, is in limbo with one tiny 1km section completed since then. 5 years later, we still have no idea what is happening with the Outer Harbor line FFS!!

Do what Perth have done with their METRONET plan. Then budget the funding accordingly. Not really hard.

There's nothing wrong with the ITULP, the only thing that's changed is the government. The Libs should stick to it

[Nathan]

Cost of adding tram right turn from King William St to North Terrace revealed to be $117 million
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 9c8fa8b502

The cost of adding a right tram turn on to North Tce to fulfil a State Government election pledge would be $117 million – a blowout of $80 million.

And millions more would be needed for other changes to deal with the crippling traffic congestion the project would cause.

A new engineering report says the project would involve ripping up hundreds of metres of track and permanently slow peak-hour traffic to a crawl.

The Aurecon Australasia report says motorists would face sitting in traffic for an extra 10 minutes to travel 1.2km along North Tce in the morning peak, up from three minutes to 13 minutes.

Tram travel times would also blow out and there would be flow-on effects to traffic outside the CBD as well.

The $37 million budgeted to retrofit the right-hand turn is $80 million short of the actual cost.

Most of the extra amount, $70 million, would be for upgrading the tram fleet because many current trams would be at “high risk” of derailment while making the turn. The other $10 million would be for roadworks.

The long-delayed North Tce extension, finally opened last month, has already cost $130 million, an overrun of $40 million.

The report, delivered to the Government more than a month ago, concludes that adding the turn is possible. But it should not go ahead without significant changes to the intersection to improve traffic capacity that would blow out the cost by even more than the $80 million.

The Government will not comment on the findings until they are released today but it is understood the project is now in serious doubt.

Aurecon’s traffic experts find congestion would become so bad at the city’s main intersection that even trams themselves would have to queue to get through.

The RAA has called on the Government to abandon the project or face what it called the “dire consequences” of the traffic gridlock throughout the CBD and beyond.

“That is our recommendation based on the effect on that intersection, which is the pivotal intersection for traffic in the city of Adelaide,’’ the RAA’s Mark Borlace said.

“It has a huge impact on both north-south and east-west traffic flow and if one of those legs has a problem, it would have dire consequences. “That has been our issue from the beginning, the impact on traffic, during construction and after.’’

The report, exclusively obtained by the Sunday Mail, involved multiple independent engineering and design firms as well as traffic experts, and concludes the turn would cut the current traffic capacity of the intersection by a quarter.

Opposition transport spo-kesman Tom Koutsantonis said Labor would hold the Government to its election promise, because it had known the barriers to the project beforehand.

“The turn can’t be done and won’t be done but they promised to do it and we expect them to deliver,’’ he said.

“They had all this information in answers to questions before the Economic and Finance Committee of Parliament last year.’’

Other problems highlighted in the report are:

CITADIS trams, the newer red models that make up half the fleet, would be at “high risk” of derailment because of their design

MOTORISTS stopping at the intersection would have inadequate visibility, and have to drive through pooled water in wet conditions, making aquaplaning while braking likely

TRAM travel times would blow out as trams would also have to queue at the intersection, and fewer tram runs could service the route to the Royal Adelaide Hospital and Entertainment Centre

UP TO 365m of track, electricity lines and mature plane trees at the intersection and beyond would have to be removed

ADELAIDE City Council said it was unlikely to approve the loss of more trees

TRAFFIC times outside the CBD would also rise. The worst stretch would be North Tce, between Magill Rd and East Tce. Travel time would double from 10 to 20 minutes.

The former Labor government rejected the right-turn option because of similar concerns to those detailed in the Aurecon report about traffic problems and costs.

The Sunday Mail understands the report has rung alarm bells at the highest levels of government about the future of a key election promise.

The report has been with the Government for more than a month but it has refused to release it while considering how or if the project should proceed.

The Liberal Party promised to reverse Labor’s rejection of a right-hand turn if it won this year’s March state election, seizing on public disbelief throughout 2017 that the turn could not be engineered without major disruption.

This culminated in an advertiser.com.au poll in which 90 per cent of 2100 people said a right turn was “a no-brainer”.

The North Tce extension opened last month – six months after deadline and $40 million over budget.

[how good is he]

It was madness to promise it at $37m let alone now at $117m.