Sensational-Adelaide.com

DM8 wrote:

Aidan wrote:But better still would be running a through service all the time - it's ridiculous to run a shuttle service when it's standing room only all the way from Glenelg!

I do so agree! But it probably wouldn't go down well with motorists, forever stopping at boom gates.

We should aim to grade separate it eventually, but meanwhile I don't think it's too much of a problem, as it's been grade separated at South Road, and it's coordinated with the traffic lights on Goodwood Road (at the Leader Street intersection). I don't know if it's coordinated with the lights on Greenhill Road, Marion Road and Morphett Road - but if it isn't, it could be.

And if motorists are still dissatisfied, maybe they should go via Unley Road instead!

rubberman wrote:The other thing is that in effect there are two services being run - the shuttle and the bay tram.

They are not mutually exclusive so that if you think that more trams should run to Glenelg (and the problems with delays at crossings can be overcome) then that can happen without having to reduce the city shuttle services.

The city shuttles are still pretty full even though they only go to Terrace to Terrace - which means that if the shuttles were not running, those extra people would somehow have to fit on the Bay Tram.

Basically at the moment we need both.

I disagree. The shuttles are not frequent enough on their own for them to be a practical option - even the combined frequency is inferior to the 99B service it replaced. So the passengers have a choice of trying to cram onto a Bay tram or waiting ages for a Terrace to Terrace tram. Running all the trams through to Glenelg would solve that problem by making the Bay trams less crowded. Therefore it would be of greater benefit to passengers in the City. It would also result in more consistent running times.

does anyone have any newer updates on the extension?

fkj wrote:does anyone have any newer updates on the extension?

Xmas shut down - nothing's been done for a couple of weeks.

Asphalting will take place around the Gaol Road intersection this weekend.

Cheers Norm.
Just out of interest moderators, why is this thread still labeled Port Adelaide Tram Line, because there sure is no tram line to port adelaide under construction yet
Wanna change it to Entertainment Centre

fkj wrote:Cheers Norm.
Just out of interest moderators, why is this thread still labeled Port Adelaide Tram Line, because there sure is no tram line to port adelaide under construction yet
Wanna change it to Entertainment Centre

no, this is stage 1 of whats called 'Coast to Coast' which will see it eventually go all the way to Port Adl and Semaphore and West Lakes???. Could be a few years, but this is the plan

Id imagine that the cost of grade separation of the existing Outer Harb tracks through the parklands (ie over the stand. guage interstate line, the Noarlunga and Belair tracks, and a ramp to get it up to North Tce to meet tramtracks at city west) was more expensive than a new line down Port Rd past Bonython Park

Edited for Tonsley213

Aidan wrote:

rubberman wrote:The other thing is that in effect there are two services being run - the shuttle and the bay tram.

They are not mutually exclusive so that if you think that more trams should run to Glenelg (and the problems with delays at crossings can be overcome) then that can happen without having to reduce the city shuttle services.

The city shuttles are still pretty full even though they only go to Terrace to Terrace - which means that if the shuttles were not running, those extra people would somehow have to fit on the Bay Tram.

Basically at the moment we need both.

I disagree. The shuttles are not frequent enough on their own for them to be a practical option - even the combined frequency is inferior to the 99B service it replaced. So the passengers have a choice of trying to cram onto a Bay tram or waiting ages for a Terrace to Terrace tram. Running all the trams through to Glenelg would solve that problem by making the Bay trams less crowded. Therefore it would be of greater benefit to passengers in the City. It would also result in more consistent running times.

Well, why not model it?

See what effect changing from the present regime has.

You can work out the relative capacities knowing the travel time to the Bay (plus layover) and travel time Terrace to Terrace.

The present regime has a higher capacity terrace to terrace (since both the Bay and Shuttle trams do that route). If you have no shuttle and shift those trams to the bay run, then the total terrace to terrace (bay and shuttle) capacity is less, but the Bay to South Terrace capacity is greater. If there is still capacity after that shift, then you are obviously right. If however, it means the trams are (more) overcrowded Terrace to Terrace, then you would be better to just put on a couple of more bay trams. With the new Citadises, numbers of trams should not be an issue. Whatever, if there is a capacity issue, unless the shuttles are running empty, you need more trams. If the shuttles are running empty, then that is a whole nother issue.

Aidan wrote: Running all the trams through to Glenelg would solve that problem by making the Bay trams less crowded. Therefore it would be of greater benefit to passengers in the City.

I couldn't disagree more. How is taking away shuttles going to improve running times on the Glenelg tram. One tram can do two or three shuttle runs in the time it takes to go back and forth to Glenelg, thus providing a much better service to where it is congested the most - ie in the city! More Glenelg trams would do little to decrease the squeeze in the city, but then run half empty the rest of the way to Glenelg.

The current problem is that the Glenelg trams often run late by about 5 mins, which adds 5 mins more worth of passengers to it's crammed carriages and 5 mins fewer passengers on the following shuttle. How often do you see a packed Glenelg tram followed immediately by an empty shuttle. They need to run the shuttles 10 mins after the last Glenelg tram and 5 mins before the next, rather than smack bang in between.

Westside wrote:

Aidan wrote: Running all the trams through to Glenelg would solve that problem by making the Bay trams less crowded. Therefore it would be of greater benefit to passengers in the City.

I couldn't disagree more. How is taking away shuttles going to improve running times on the Glenelg tram.

Running every tram to Glenelg would mean that fewer passengers would need to board and alight, so it would reduce stop dwell times.

One tram can do two or three shuttle runs in the time it takes to go back and forth to Glenelg, thus providing a much better service to where it is congested the most - ie in the city! More Glenelg trams would do little to decrease the squeeze in the city, but then run half empty the rest of the way to Glenelg.

When did you last see a Glenelg tram half empty? Last time I caught a Glenelg tram (around 3pm on a weekday) it was standing room only all the way from Glenelg! I hope you agree that should be unacceptable for a half hour journey!

The current problem is that the Glenelg trams often run late by about 5 mins, which adds 5 mins more worth of passengers to it's crammed carriages and 5 mins fewer passengers on the following shuttle. How often do you see a packed Glenelg tram followed immediately by an empty shuttle. They need to run the shuttles 10 mins after the last Glenelg tram and 5 mins before the next, rather than smack bang in between.

That would give much more consistent loadings, but passengers in the City shouldn't have to wait ten minutes for a shuttle tram.

Aidan wrote:Running every tram to Glenelg would mean that fewer passengers would need to board and alight, so it would reduce stop dwell times.

Wait, what?

AtD wrote:

Aidan wrote:Running every tram to Glenelg would mean that fewer passengers would need to board and alight, so it would reduce stop dwell times.

Wait, what?

At the moment there are too many passengers per tram, and because of this it takes longer than it should for the passengers to get on and off.

Edited for Tonsley213

Wow, what a considerable improvement (thus far) to what it used to be. Will the Port Adelaide station be entirely new, when complete?

What will this mean for speeds? - I noticed the TSR of 40 on the viaduct. Would 80 be manageable?

Aidan wrote:

AtD wrote:

Aidan wrote:Running every tram to Glenelg would mean that fewer passengers would need to board and alight, so it would reduce stop dwell times.

Wait, what?

At the moment there are too many passengers per tram, and because of this it takes longer than it should for the passengers to get on and off.

Too many per shuttle tram or Glenelg tram or both? Get on and off in the city or on the way to Glenelg somewhere? I think a fast and frequent shuttle service in the city is more important than a marginally faster Glenelg service, if I am understanding your argument correctly.