News & Discussion: Trams

[ChillyPhilly]

Apparently, trams will be stored around South Terrace when not in use during closure.

We have the State Budget to come before long, as well as Federal, so we may yet see Morphett Road and a new depot in Hindmarsh.

Ideally, we'll have South Road rebuild, Marion/Cross Road and Morphett Road all done within the one timeline, and consideration for Greenhill Road and Goodwood Road, even.

[rev]

Are two more depots really needed for what's basically more or less just one tram line? Where there any new depots planned for the AdeLINK expansion?

[PD2/20]

Are two more depots really needed for what's basically more or less just one tram line? Where there any new depots planned for the AdeLINK expansion?

The two more depots you speak of are as I understand: (1) temporary stabling and minor servicing facilities required to run trams in CBD during the Marion/Cross overpass construction. These might utilise (in part) the South Tce sidings. (2) a new depot at Hindmarsh to replace Glengowrie which would become inaccessible if a Morphett Rd overpass is constructed.

The AdeLink expansion would have required additional depot facilities as Glengowrie is currently at capacity. The two heritage H trams which used to be at Glengowrie had to be stored elsewhere to accommodate the 3 additional Citadis trams for the Botanic Gardens extension in 2018.

[rubberman]

Are two more depots really needed for what's basically more or less just one tram line? Where there any new depots planned for the AdeLINK expansion?

It might depend on plans for the Outer Harbor line. If that was to be converted to light rail, a new depot is required. Or any expansion, really. Morphetville is chockers.

[ChillyPhilly]

Are two more depots really needed for what's basically more or less just one tram line? Where there any new depots planned for the AdeLINK expansion?

It might depend on plans for the Outer Harbor line. If that was to be converted to light rail, a new depot is required. Or any expansion, really. Morphetville is chockers.

I think OH as light rail is off the cards, but time will tell. Outer Harbor to the CBD as a tram just sounds like too much of a stretch. However, light rail gets big marks as it can link the entire western suburbs including areas beyond the immediate practical reach of heavy rail (think Arndale for example).

[rev]

Are two more depots really needed for what's basically more or less just one tram line? Where there any new depots planned for the AdeLINK expansion?

It might depend on plans for the Outer Harbor line. If that was to be converted to light rail, a new depot is required. Or any expansion, really. Morphetville is chockers.

I think OH as light rail is off the cards, but time will tell. Outer Harbor to the CBD as a tram just sounds like too much of a stretch. However, light rail gets big marks as it can link the entire western suburbs including areas beyond the immediate practical reach of heavy rail (think Arndale for example).

It'd be a real shame, but not at all surprising for SA, if the Labor government weren't having a look at either AdeLINK or a revised version of it such as just doing the inner suburbs to begin with.

[Norman]

Exactly, trams are off the cards until at least the next election.

[claybro]

It might depend on plans for the Outer Harbor line. If that was to be converted to light rail, a new depot is required. Or any expansion, really. Morphetville is chockers.

I think OH as light rail is off the cards, but time will tell. Outer Harbor to the CBD as a tram just sounds like too much of a stretch. However, light rail gets big marks as it can link the entire western suburbs including areas beyond the immediate practical reach of heavy rail (think Arndale for example).

It'd be a real shame, but not at all surprising for SA, if the Labor government weren't having a look at either AdeLINK or a revised version of it such as just doing the inner suburbs to begin with.

The whole OH rail corridor really does get this thread tied in knots. When last in government, state Labor first proposed a hybrid tram/train thingy which died a quiet death. It then proposed several options to link the Ent Cent tram to the corridor, or just using the existing OH line through the parklands to enter the CBD, either as an adjacent light rail-or replacing heavy rail. It then had several options under the Adelink propsal as part of the Western Suburbs overall.
THEN...next brain fart out of nowhere was reopening the Port dock spur, using heavy rail terminating at Port Dock. The last proposal meant the end of light rail on this corridor.-It's dead-gone-done for. We've had endless discussion about OH being too long for light rail, and light rail being too slow, despite the current heavy rail and indeed Adelaides new electric trains operated at barley faster than comparable light rail systems running over long distances elsewhere in Europe.
Full marks though to the last Labor admin, for getting the Glenelg tram into the guts of the city and making it somewhat useful despite the near hysteria when first proposed.

[rubberman]

I think OH as light rail is off the cards, but time will tell. Outer Harbor to the CBD as a tram just sounds like too much of a stretch. However, light rail gets big marks as it can link the entire western suburbs including areas beyond the immediate practical reach of heavy rail (think Arndale for example).

It'd be a real shame, but not at all surprising for SA, if the Labor government weren't having a look at either AdeLINK or a revised version of it such as just doing the inner suburbs to begin with.

The whole OH rail corridor really does get this thread tied in knots. When last in government, state Labor first proposed a hybrid tram/train thingy which died a quiet death. It then proposed several options to link the Ent Cent tram to the corridor, or just using the existing OH line through the parklands to enter the CBD, either as an adjacent light rail-or replacing heavy rail. It then had several options under the Adelink propsal as part of the Western Suburbs overall.
THEN...next brain fart out of nowhere was reopening the Port dock spur, using heavy rail terminating at Port Dock. The last proposal meant the end of light rail on this corridor.-It's dead-gone-done for. We've had endless discussion about OH being too long for light rail, and light rail being too slow, despite the current heavy rail and indeed Adelaides new electric trains operated at barley faster than comparable light rail systems running over long distances elsewhere in Europe.
Full marks though to the last Labor admin, for getting the Glenelg tram into the guts of the city and making it somewhat useful despite the near hysteria when first proposed.

Nothing is going to happen while the existing diesel railcars are in service. There's hardly any point.

The big question will come when those railcars are up for replacement. Conversion to light rail is a viable option. As is replacement with more diesels. As is electrification. Along with this are the variations such as abandonment of the Grange line, decommissioning of stations to increase scheduled speed, etc etc. Then there's "out there" ideas like extending the line to future urban development of Torrens Island which are fanciful at the moment, but might be feasible in the future.

The point being that while the diesel railcars are going strong, nothing is going to happen, and that almost any idea could be a brain fart because in ten or fifteen years things can change dramatically. For example, an incoming government might look at big plans for the Western suburbs as a means of providing much needed housing closer to the city, and revitalising some pretty tired areas along Port, Grange, Henley Beach, and Tapleys Hill Roads in addition to Torrens Island. Do all or any of the above, and who knows what the transport system serving the West would look like?

[Nort]

THEN...next brain fart out of nowhere was reopening the Port dock spur, using heavy rail terminating at Port Dock. The last proposal meant the end of light rail on this corridor.-It's dead-gone-done for.

Not necessarily.

I suspect that spur was proposed partially as a Trojan horse.

Get that Port Dock spur active, and then extend from it as part of a new tram connection if the entire line is converted.

Agree it probably won't happen for a long time if ever, but makes sense in that plan.

[claybro]

THEN...next brain fart out of nowhere was reopening the Port dock spur, using heavy rail terminating at Port Dock. The last proposal meant the end of light rail on this corridor.-It's dead-gone-done for.

Not necessarily.

I suspect that spur was proposed partially as a Trojan horse.

Get that Port Dock spur active, and then extend from it as part of a new tram connection if the entire line is converted.

Agree it probably won't happen for a long time if ever, but makes sense in that plan.

I like the positive thinking, and would make sense in the context of how the previous government had to almost roll out the previous extensions, inch by inch so as not to frighten the naysayers of which there were many as spare money became available. Funny how now, the trams are just a part of the fabric of Adelaide again. As rubberman points out though, I don't think anything will happen, at least in this term of government, as disappointingly, this administration seems to have no one with any interest in rail of any kind.

[whatstheirnamesmom]

City of Adelaide are putting forward some interesting proposals as part of their planned makeover for O'Connell Street.

Two concepts exist -- one with a planted median which would serve as an allowance for a future single tram track. The other is with a single tram track.

The plans are still in the concept planning stage and so are certainly not finalised. I think it's good that CoA are still pursuing this idea and creating demand for a tram extension.

The way I am interpreting this concept (and I am open to other viewpoints) is that CoA are saying to DIT/State Gov: "We know a single track would be a bad idea for a future service to Prospect/elsewhere but that's all we're going to build an allowance for unless you want to come to the table and front up some money towards our makeover."










The full plans can be found through the CoA website.

[AG]

The whole utilising ground level power system in lieu of overhead power lines is fanciful unless they can somehow convince the state government/DIT to invest in a new tram fleet with the capability of utilising the ground level power system. Also, single track operation would be very shortsighted - the previous single track section on North Terrace was ripped up less than 10 years after it was first placed.

[dbl96]

City of Adelaide are putting forward some interesting proposals as part of their planned makeover for O'Connell Street.

Two concepts exist -- one with a planted median which would serve as an allowance for a future single tram track. The other is with a single tram track.

Are you suggesting that one of the options is that the ACC would actually build the tram line as part of the streetscape upgrade?

The way I am interpreting this concept (and I am open to other viewpoints) is that CoA are saying to DIT/State Gov: "We know a single track would be a bad idea for a future service to Prospect/elsewhere but that's all we're going to build an allowance for unless you want to come to the table and front up some money towards our makeover."

It seems to me to be a compromise between desires to:
a) provide the tram connection, while also
b) delivering improvements to pedestrian & cycling infrastructure and the public realm, while also
c) placating the motorist/car parking lobby (often led by local business) who will likely cry foul if a single on-street car park is lost.

I don't think the proposed design precludes a later upgrade to a dual track tram line - all it would require is subsequent conversion of the northbound centre car lane to a tram lane, and the corresponding conversion of the northbound parking/car lane to a permanent car lane with clearway. Parking could be retained on the other side of the road.


I dont understand what the big deal is about overhead poles and wires for the trams. Theyve been installed everywhere else on the network without issue. Someone on council must have a gripe about them - its not the first time they have raised the idea that the North Adelaide extension should be wire-free. But I do find it funny, because currently the council has the old tram poles (or at least something looking like then) installed in the middle of O'Connell St for decoration.

[rubberman]

City of Adelaide are putting forward some interesting proposals as part of their planned makeover for O'Connell Street.

Two concepts exist -- one with a planted median which would serve as an allowance for a future single tram track. The other is with a single tram track.

Are you suggesting that one of the options is that the ACC would actually build the tram line as part of the streetscape upgrade?

The way I am interpreting this concept (and I am open to other viewpoints) is that CoA are saying to DIT/State Gov: "We know a single track would be a bad idea for a future service to Prospect/elsewhere but that's all we're going to build an allowance for unless you want to come to the table and front up some money towards our makeover."

It seems to me to be a compromise between desires to:
a) provide the tram connection, while also
b) delivering improvements to pedestrian & cycling infrastructure and the public realm, while also
c) placating the motorist/car parking lobby (often led by local business) who will likely cry foul if a single on-street car park is lost.

I don't think the proposed design precludes a later upgrade to a dual track tram line - all it would require is subsequent conversion of the northbound centre car lane to a tram lane, and the corresponding conversion of the northbound parking/car lane to a permanent car lane with clearway. Parking could be retained on the other side of the road.


I dont understand what the big deal is about overhead poles and wires for the trams. Theyve been installed everywhere else on the network without issue. Someone on council must have a gripe about them - its not the first time they have raised the idea that the North Adelaide extension should be wire-free. But I do find it funny, because currently the council has the old tram poles (or at least something looking like then) installed in the middle of O'Connell St for decoration.

The problem is that it severely limits the numbers of trams that could run. Let's say that it took a tram 5 minutes to get from Adelaide Oval to the end of O'Connell Street. Then the next tram would have to be a minimum of ten minutes behind to allow for a tram coming the opposite way. Of course, that assumes that there's a tram waiting at each end ready to go. If there's a delay, it's longer. In the real world, there's going to be delays. Next, the whole route is then controlled by the need to have trams at the ends of the single track at exactly the right time. So, traffic conditions and demands elsewhere need to take a lower priority.

A different approach would be to have two tram lines, but allow all the O'Connell Street buses to use the tramline as a combined busway/tramway as is done elsewhere in the world. This gets buses out of the way.