News & Discussion: Trams

[rubberman]

Fantastic... about time. Always such a joke when a tram of 80 people gets held up by one guy waiting for the light to go orange to turn right...

Plenty of complainers on the Advertiser website about right hand turns being removed, I don't think it's a big deal, but I wonder if they would consider hook turns?

But...but...but, I thought the Liberals liked right turns!

[SBD]

Oh no to side platforms. This slows the trams even more.

The current set up at city south allows a better flow for the trams through the lights. While red the boarding takes place, than on green the tram heads off.

The issues with this set up is that a tram travelling north now stops at the lights, travels across the intersection to stop again,

This isn't true with proper signal synchronisation. For example the stop at Pirie St is right after a set of signals if heading north, but you will find a tram rarely gets stopped here. You know it is synchronised with the tram because the lights change to red almost immediately after a tram crosses.

The Pirie Street stop has a single centre island platform for trams in both directions. The current City South layout has separate centre platforms for each direction, so both are before the lights. It could continue to be a split stop if the platforms are moved to the outside of the tracks instead of between them - this could mean the total width occupied by the tram stops is less than is needed at Pirie Street as the total stop is stretched out longer along King William Street.

[PD2/20]

Oh no to side platforms. This slows the trams even more.

The current set up at city south allows a better flow for the trams through the lights. While red the boarding takes place, than on green the tram heads off.

The issues with this set up is that a tram travelling north now stops at the lights, travels across the intersection to stop again,

This isn't true with proper signal synchronisation. For example the stop at Pirie St is right after a set of signals if heading north, but you will find a tram rarely gets stopped here. You know it is synchronised with the tram because the lights change to red almost immediately after a tram crosses.

Kymbosa, the issue you refer to isn't centre v side platforms rather staggered/non-staggered platforms. City South is unusual in having staggered centre platforms. Most of the major road crossings south of Greenhill Rd have staggered side platforms.

Arki, Pirie St must be then be one of the few junctions where trams are not subject to traffic light delays. It suggests that the Franklin St and Pirie St lights are reasonably synchronised, rather than trams getting pre-emptive priority at lights.

[citywatcher]

For a govt that slashes and hates trams it finds millions to spend on unnecessarily doing up a little used tram stop that will create traffic chaos
Typical

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

In 2007 when the tram was extended from Victoria Square to North Tce right hand turns off of King William St were removed.

That extension caused concern and mass hysteria over traffic snarls and accessibility, however once complete, opposition to the project quickly waned.

It begins.

Not comparing like for like and for $17m ?

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

[Nort]

For a govt that slashes and hates trams it finds millions to spend on unnecessarily doing up a little used tram stop that will create traffic chaos
Typical

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

In 2007 when the tram was extended from Victoria Square to North Tce right hand turns off of King William St were removed.

That extension caused concern and mass hysteria over traffic snarls and accessibility, however once complete, opposition to the project quickly waned.

It begins.

Not comparing like for like and for $17m ?

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

These complaints about how tram works will cause traffic problems are entirely different to complaints about how tram works a few hundred meters away on the same street will cause traffic problems!

I'll bite though - what do you think would be a reasonable cost to carry out the necessary tramline and stop works, and if you dispute they are necessary why do you think this stop doesn't need to meet the legal access requirements?

[timtam20292]

Received this today.

[timtam20292]

Other side. Click both for bigger and better quality.

[PD2/20]

I am concerned about the relaying of that section though. Two reasons: first, in Melbourne, they'd just grind the bumps off and reconcrete the loose bits. ...

They've been welding the rail and patching the concrete repeatedly in that section over at least the last ten years!

I note that this stop and track is about the only part of the pre-2005 tram operation that has not been replaced or upgraded. Since 2005 the trams, track, overhead, substations and depot have all been renewed or extended. Since 2007 it has been possible to travel from City South to beyond Victoria Sq in the CBD.

[rubberman]

I am concerned about the relaying of that section though. Two reasons: first, in Melbourne, they'd just grind the bumps off and reconcrete the loose bits. ...

They've been welding the rail and patching the concrete repeatedly in that section over at least the last ten years!

I note that this stop and track is about the only part of the pre-2005 tram operation that has not been replaced or upgraded. Since 2005 the trams, track, overhead, substations and depot have all been renewed or extended. Since 2007 it has been possible to travel from City South to beyond Victoria Sq in the CBD.

The present track was laid to Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board standards in the late 1980s. That style of track has a fifty year life. So, whatever they are doing in terms of welding and patching clearly is not up to standard. In Melbourne, over the past ten years, they have been replacing this exact same sort of track laid in the 1960s. Fifty years after construction.

So, something is very very wrong if it's being replaced twenty years too soon.

The reason this is important is that if tram track only has a thirty year life, then it means the economics of trams becomes very dodgy. If you spend $10m on a stretch of track and have to pay it off over 30 years, that's $330,00/year. Whereas if you can pay it off over 50 years that's $200,000/year, almost 50% more. Add that to bridges unnecessarily strengthened and other expensive add-ons, I can see why a government might decide that trams are simply too expensive. Frankly, I'd rather they spent money wisely, so they could do other things with the savings.

[Brucetiki]

Great to see City South get a much needed upgraded.

BTW how is the minister pronouncing his name this week

[PD2/20]

The present track was laid to Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board standards in the late 1980s. That style of track has a fifty year life. So, whatever they are doing in terms of welding and patching clearly is not up to standard. In Melbourne, over the past ten years, they have been replacing this exact same sort of track laid in the 1960s. Fifty years after construction.

So, something is very very wrong if it's being replaced twenty years too soon.

The reason this is important is that if tram track only has a thirty year life, then it means the economics of trams becomes very dodgy. If you spend $10m on a stretch of track and have to pay it off over 30 years, that's $330,00/year. Whereas if you can pay it off over 50 years that's $200,000/year, almost 50% more. Add that to bridges unnecessarily strengthened and other expensive add-ons, I can see why a government might decide that trams are simply too expensive. Frankly, I'd rather they spent money wisely, so they could do other things with the savings.

Your reply raises a number of questions.

How is the 50 year life of the track arrived at? By extrapolation from engineering design principles? From empirical observation of track condition?

Was the track actually constructed to the MMTB standards specified?

Has all track in Melbourne constucted to the MMTB standards you instance lasted for 50 years?

What frequency of rail/track failures can be expected in the lifetime of well-constructed track?

Are the recent track problems that require the current 20 km/h in King William at locations that have been previously repaired or are they at new locations?

[Waewick]

Did you hear Leon on 5AA say that North Adelaide tram extension is a goer?

Be interesting if we hear anything

[citywatcher]

It begins.

Not comparing like for like and for $17m ?

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

These complaints about how tram works will cause traffic problems are entirely different to complaints about how tram works a few hundred meters away on the same street will cause traffic problems!

I'll bite though - what do you think would be a reasonable cost to carry out the necessary tramline and stop works, and if you dispute they are necessary why do you think this stop doesn't need to meet the legal access requirements?

Are the requirements being currently met

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

[rubberman]

The present track was laid to Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board standards in the late 1980s. That style of track has a fifty year life. So, whatever they are doing in terms of welding and patching clearly is not up to standard. In Melbourne, over the past ten years, they have been replacing this exact same sort of track laid in the 1960s. Fifty years after construction.

So, something is very very wrong if it's being replaced twenty years too soon.

The reason this is important is that if tram track only has a thirty year life, then it means the economics of trams becomes very dodgy. If you spend $10m on a stretch of track and have to pay it off over 30 years, that's $330,00/year. Whereas if you can pay it off over 50 years that's $200,000/year, almost 50% more. Add that to bridges unnecessarily strengthened and other expensive add-ons, I can see why a government might decide that trams are simply too expensive. Frankly, I'd rather they spent money wisely, so they could do other things with the savings.

Your reply raises a number of questions.

How is the 50 year life of the track arrived at? By extrapolation from engineering design principles? From empirical observation of track condition?

Was the track actually constructed to the MMTB standards specified?

Has all track in Melbourne constucted to the MMTB standards you instance lasted for 50 years?

What frequency of rail/track failures can be expected in the lifetime of well-constructed track?

Are the recent track problems that require the current 20 km/h in King William at locations that have been previously repaired or are they at new locations?

The fifty year life is the time from construction in the 1960s up to the observed recent replacement program in Melbourne.

I recall the construction at the time, and yes I believe the construction was to MMTB Standards. (I am a civil engineer, although I am now relying on a thirty year old memory).

The question of how long it has lasted is hard to answer, since the MMTB and latterly Yarra Trams has used a grind, weld, concrete cut and mortar pack, technique to keep the track in service. My impression is that it's about the thirty year mark they have to seriously start on the maintenance, and it's more a question of the economics of increased maintenance vs replacement cost by 50 years. So, the reason for my raising this is that given a similar starting point and construction, and given that the MMTB/Yarra Trams are using repair after 30 years, why is it so different here? Could a decent program of maintenance prolong the life by another 20 years?

As far as I am aware, the failures form a typical "bathtub" curve. I don’t know the exact numbers. My point though, is that a competent interstate authority, using the same materials, and with similar structural loads and perhaps a higher tram service frequency has crunched all the numbers you mentioned and come up with a different answer. Given that YT have had a lot more experience, you'd hope that DPTI would be able to explain the difference. Certainly, that's the question a competent Minister would ask...and a prudent Departmental Head would have prepared an answer for. There's not much leakage from here, but imagine if a Ministerial advisor were to scan such pages for ideas for their Minister, would the head of DPTI be prepared to answer?

[arki]

Oh no to side platforms. This slows the trams even more.

The current set up at city south allows a better flow for the trams through the lights. While red the boarding takes place, than on green the tram heads off.

The issues with this set up is that a tram travelling north now stops at the lights, travels across the intersection to stop again,

This isn't true with proper signal synchronisation. For example the stop at Pirie St is right after a set of signals if heading north, but you will find a tram rarely gets stopped here. You know it is synchronised with the tram because the lights change to red almost immediately after a tram crosses.

The Pirie Street stop has a single centre island platform for trams in both directions. The current City South layout has separate centre platforms for each direction...

I know...

My point is that with proper signaling, further delay caused by red lights is a non issue.

Arki, Pirie St must be then be one of the few junctions where trams are not subject to traffic light delays. It suggests that the Franklin St and Pirie St lights are reasonably synchronised, rather than trams getting pre-emptive priority at lights.

I only speak anecdotally, but my experience is that heading north, trams tend to get caught at Vic Sq before crossing Wakefield St (this is fine as they are parked at the stop anyway), then a green signal takes the tram right through to Pirie St.