News & Discussion: Trams

[whatstheirnamesmom]

No sure that the right turn was/ is daft, given that the Botanic extension was envisaged as the beginning of extensions to the Eastern suburbs, and not having the right turn does limit the options for that extension even now. The cost to alter the intersection in money and disruption now would far outweigh the issues when the extension was first built.

It's not daft to think it's needed, as the general public understandably know very little about the practical reality of planning for fixed public transport services. But that right turn really isn't as critical as people make it out to be. It would be highly unlikely to ever be required. An extension to Norwood/Magill would likely through-run with the Entertainment Centre or perhaps a new line to the airport/Henley Beach: no turns required at King W/Nth T. An extension to North Adelaide/Prospect would very likely through-run with Glenelg: no turns required at King W/Nth T. A city loop would likely run North Tce, East Tce, Hutt St, Halifax St, Sturt St, West Tce: no turns required at King W/Nth T. A new/second depot would likely be built near Hindmarsh: with the city loop, new track at Nth T/West T and at Sturt/Halifax would enable Glengowrie trams to move to E-W track and Hindmarsh trams to move to N-S track. Even without a city loop, these turns can be facilitated for start- and end-of-day movements already with no more dead-running than already occurs.

The movements a right turn at Nth Tce would enable would simply be enabled elsewhere, and without bottlenecking that intersection. The lack of turn 'limiting options' for routes isn't a good enough reason to even consider paying to rebuild it given that future routes would be so unlikely to utilise it.

for future extensions and replacement trams- we really should try to do a deal with the Melbourne manufacturer to tack on to any Melbourne orders

Completely agree

[rubberman]

Why would the government need to spend anything on a right turn? As far as I see it, a right turn onto North Terrace wouldn't enable any worthwhile new services. In the first generation days, trams only moved E-S and S-E through the intersection when heading to/from Hackney Depot, and then also for a few years when revenue service trams began using it once Payneham/Paradise and Fullarton/Springfield trams were through-routed with each other.

Any movements that a right turn at North Terrace would enable could be enabled elsewhere on an expanded network, especially with a city loop.




I get what you're saying, but a single truck tram would be an Adelaide Type A, B, C or G. The Citadis are rigid truck trams, however, so yes they do grind more than the Flexity trucks. The grinding from the Citadis aren't causing issues to the degree that their replacement is warranted at this stage. If network expansion occurs and any similar or tighter curves are required, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider. Replacement would ultimately depend on a lot of factors beyond just curve grinding alone – I would consider it very unlikely they will face early disposal.

I agree that the right turn is daft. I was only referring to it in the context that that was one of the Adelink options.

The Citadis is effectively a couple of single truck trams like the Bib and Bub, with fancy joints between the sections. The type is likely better known by the "two rooms and a bath" descriptor from a patent originally taken out in 1892. They had a brief surge of popularity almost 100 years ago until revived by the likes of Alstom, and will probably die out for the same reasons they died out a century ago. They're cheaper to build, but are murder for track, and slower on open ballast than trams with swivelling trucks.

No sure that the right turn was/ is daft, given that the Botanic extension was envisaged as the beginning of extensions to the Eastern suburbs, and not having the right turn does limit the options for that extension even now. The cost to alter the intersection in money and disruption now would far outweigh the issues when the extension was first built. ( why are things deemed insurmountable now that were done with ease 120 years ago?) Any way- with regard to the Citadis- at the time it was a cost effective quick option for additional trams, but for future extensions and replacement trams- we really should try to do a deal with the Melbourne manufacturer to tack on to any Melbourne orders, if they can even keep up with their own requirements. Perhaps the federal government would be more inclined to input, if we guaranteed more "made in Australia" components, instead of ordering from Europe. All of this though- would require ongoing planning and momentum for the system -the lack of which causes most of the issues SA encounters.

It's daft for two reasons. First, the traffic in North Terrace is already bumper to bumper during peak hours. Adding time to the light cycle at the intersection has serious implications. The second is that it's simply not needed. Other route options are available which avoid it.

As for being deemed insurmountable, I doubt that. It's more likely that the Government didn't want to keep its promise, so by careful management of the study led to that outcome. Specifically, if you insist that the right turn had to accommodate the 9 Citadis trams, then because of the limitations of those trams, you have to re-work the whole intersection. If, however, you exclude them from the right turn, cheaper options become available. Specifically, the minimum turning radius of the Citadis meant that the point blades for the right turn ended up in the same location as existing points going the other way. Physically impossible. If, however, you could use a smaller radius curve, no such clash occurs. Now, since new trams would be needed for Adelink, there was no need to have the Citadis use that curve...ever. so, it wasn't insurmountable, it was insurmountable if you told the consultants they had to allow for the Citadis.

[A-Town]

Just saw this ad pop up in my Facebook feed. Watch this space...

https://www.facebook.com/share/7mvvGfXo ... tid=oFDknk

[Waewick]

Just saw this ad pop up in my Facebook feed. Watch this space...

Screenshot_20240714_120718_Facebook.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/share/7mvvGfXo ... tid=oFDknk

Aren't they in Govt?

Feels like something they should have a handle on, but still a good idea.

[rogue]

What a con job.

Whilst not widely reported, it was part of the original scope for the grade separations project.

Typical politics at play and impeccable timing to cut the ribbon just before the 2026 state election.

[Norman]

It's probably there to collect people's personal information. Data mining at is finest.

[Patrick_27]

Apparently this grade-separation is being explored as part of the current grade-separation of Marion/Cross Road(s).

I might be in a minority of people who wasn't aware of this until recently, but in my defence, the media reporting on the South Road tunnels seems to have left this out (conveniently or otherwise). The tram overpass over South Road will be rebuilt entirely in conjunction with the Marion/Cross Road(s) grade-separation as part of the tunnel project. Which just high-lights the incompetence of previous governments, when they built the overpass it was profusely stated that further South Road upgrades were considered in its design.

[SouthAussie94]

South Road Upgrades were considered, it's just that the form and the scale of the upgrades has increased dramatically.

The current overpass would comfortably fit a T2T style upgrade underneath it. My understanding is that it was this scale upgrade that the overpass was designed for. 6x motorway lanes, 4x surface level roads, with the motorway lanes basically at current surface levels.

What is now proposed is drastically different, with the lowered motorway through this section being built much lower than what the existing overpass footings would allow. The motorway through here needs to be lower so that it can interface with the tunnel.

[SouthAussie94]

Also, there was a soil testing drill rig at the Morphett Rd crossing today. Seemingly drilling and testing along Maxwell Terrace.

Long story short, the grade separation is happening and DIT are carrying out early works. This is consistent with what I've been hearing around the place.

Labor are unfortunately playing politics with it. Expect an announcement when they need a positive distraction

[Llessur2002]

Morphett Road, Anzac Hwy tram overpass plan for Morphettville

A notorious level crossing in Morphettville will be replaced with a tram overpass in a $200m joint-funded project designed to improve road safety.


An artist impression of the tram overpass at Morphett Road near Anzac Hwy. Picture: Supplied

Plans for the overpass, with funding evenly split between the federal and state governments, were released on Tuesday to construct a tram overpass at the Morphett Rd level crossing near Anzac Hwy.

The overpass aims to cut accidents and reduce commuter delays during peak times for the more than 25,600 motorists who use the road.

There were 106 crashes and 40 injuries recorded at the crossing between 2019 and 2023.

The overpass will be built by the Tram Grade Separation Projects Alliance – including McConnell Dowell, CPB Contractors, Arup, Mott MacDonald and sub-Alliance partner Aurecon and the Transport Department.

During construction, the Glenelg tram line will shut for about six months in the second half of 2025, with the overpass to be built in that time frame on the existing corridor.


Traffic at intersection of Morphett Road and Anzac Hwy before tram overpass. Picture: Supplied

Tram services will remain operational between the Entertainment Centre and Botanic Gardens during construction while substitute buses will operate between Glenelg and South Terrace.

Major construction is slated to start late this year.

Federal Infrastructure Minister Catherine King said removing the Morphett Rd level crossing would improve safety for all road users.

“The Albanese Government investment in this project will ensure commuters can benefit from safer, faster trips along these crucial traffic links for years to come,” she said.

“This project demonstrates our government’s commitment to supporting more efficient, resilient and integrated traffic and transport solutions for South Australians.”

The $200m project is part of the wider initiative between the state and federal governments to improve road safety, and follows the $400m equal funding commitment to remove the tram level crossings at Marion and Cross roads in Plympton.

State Infrastructure and Transport Minister Tom Koutsantonis said the projects would make a “huge difference”.

“The projects will also provide an important boost to the South Australian economy, supporting approximately 1115 full-time-equivalent jobs per year over the construction period,” he said.


The proposed tram overpass. Picture: Supplied


The proposed tram overpass. Picture: Supplied

The Alliance would also rebuild the South Road Tram Overpass at Glandore for the River Torrens to Darlington lowered motorway.

State MPs Sarah Andrews and Jayne Stinson, whose electorates are within the project area, welcomed what they described as “congestion busters”.

Federal MP Louise Miller-Frost said her Boothy constituents identified congestion issues with her “constantly”, and welcomed the announcement.

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 594350914e

[Saltwater]

Great to see some strategy in getting all these projects done at the same time.

Love how this nugget has just been buried, let's hope nobody sees it until later and starts asking questions about who approved the original design... "The Alliance would also rebuild the South Road Tram Overpass at Glandore for the River Torrens to Darlington lowered motorway."

[ChillyPhilly]

Great to see some strategy in getting all these projects done at the same time.

Love how this nugget has just been buried, let's hope nobody sees it until later and starts asking questions about who approved the original design... "The Alliance would also rebuild the South Road Tram Overpass at Glandore for the River Torrens to Darlington lowered motorway."

I thought it was reasonably known that South Road stop will be rebuilt?

It would be good to see it better publicised though.

[cmet]

Reading the premier’s announcement is telling, with it solely discussing the project’s benefits for motorists.

[Saltwater]

He will have learned from Dan Andrews, where the level crossing removal project in Melbourne was so popular largely because it benefited motorists so much.

[Nathan]

It's odd that they seem to have gone out of their way to not show how access to the depot will be handled. It's cropped out of every render and the video, and no mention is made of it in either the press release or the project website.