News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
EBG
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3101
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1816 Post by EBG » Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:47 pm

Another view at the corner of North Tce and Frome St (similar to where Rubberman was).
Attachments
20171007_tram 1.jpg
20171007_tram 1.jpg (218.87 KiB) Viewed 3411 times

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2006
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1817 Post by rubberman » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:16 pm

Excuse the quality, I was shooting into the sun.
20171008_103516_resized.jpg
Frome Rd looking East
20171008_103516_resized.jpg (399.41 KiB) Viewed 3304 times

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Kaurna Land.
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1818 Post by ChillyPhilly » Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:25 pm

From yesterday.

Image
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1819 Post by monotonehell » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:48 pm

rubberman wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:16 pm
Excuse the quality, I was shooting into the sun.
Maybe try shading the lens with a spare hand (if you have one)?
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

OlympusAnt
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 7:31 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1820 Post by OlympusAnt » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:19 pm

It seems they found the old rails under the road, I saw cut sleepers about 8-10 inches deep

As for speed of construction, they are flying through :applause: :applause:
Follow me on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/135625678@N06/

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2006
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1821 Post by rubberman » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:49 pm

OlympusAnt wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:19 pm
It seems they found the old rails under the road, I saw cut sleepers about 8-10 inches deep

As for speed of construction, they are flying through :applause: :applause:
I don't know if any rails were found. The sleepers were encased in concrete by the MTT, so some were probably left there because they were too hard to get out.

User avatar
shiftaling
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Modbury

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1822 Post by shiftaling » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:16 pm

This seems like a ridiculously short-sighted decision! They decided not to build a grand union junction after all, it's a real pity.

https://indaily.com.au/news/2017/10/09/ ... m-network/

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1823 Post by Norman » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:41 pm

It is a pity, and it's also not good that they haven't released any information on routes yet.

User avatar
Kasey771
Legendary Member!
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:56 am

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1824 Post by Kasey771 » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm

shiftaling wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:16 pm
This seems like a ridiculously short-sighted decision! They decided not to build a grand union junction after all, it's a real pity.

https://indaily.com.au/news/2017/10/09/ ... m-network/
My read is that they considered it, but the requirement for a retaining wall in the NW corner of the intersection out the front of Parliament House would have blown the budget. As long as they design what we are getting for easy passenger transfer from N/S trams on KWS to E/W trams on North Tce then not really an issue IMO.
Big infrastructure investments are usually under-valued and & over-criticized while in the planning stage. It's much easier to envision the here and now costs and inconveniences, and far more difficult to imagine fully the eventual benefits.

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3290
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1825 Post by [Shuz] » Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:08 pm

Does a grand junction really cost an extra $20m though? Are the tracks made of gold?
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

User avatar
Kasey771
Legendary Member!
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:56 am

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1826 Post by Kasey771 » Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:11 pm

[Shuz] wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:08 pm
Does a grand junction really cost an extra $20m though? Are the tracks made of gold?
I dont know, but I'd imagine with an extra degree or three of complexity it would require more maintenance. There'd be that cost, plus imagine the bleating if KWS/North Tce intersection was shut for maintenance works every few months?
Big infrastructure investments are usually under-valued and & over-criticized while in the planning stage. It's much easier to envision the here and now costs and inconveniences, and far more difficult to imagine fully the eventual benefits.

victorious80
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:33 am

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1827 Post by victorious80 » Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:13 pm

grand unions are extremely expensive, and due to tight light rail track standards, geometrically difficult to construct (intersection needs to be dead flat). there are only a few left operating around the world (incl one in melbourne which is worth seeing), and unless the network absolutely needs it, the additional expense is difficult to justify (not to mention ongoing operational and maintenance costs). it would certainly be great to have one at the north tce / kw st intersection, but the reality is that the junction we are getting will be suitable for Adelaide's network. in terms of future proofing, once the remainder of the city loop is built, we will get the same flexibility from the network by using the loop rather than sending all routes through that intersection (ie if a service needs to go from northbound KW st to eastbound North Tce to head to Norwood, it might be able to use the city loop to head east rather than making the turn at the KW / North Tce intersection).

User avatar
shiftaling
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Modbury

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1828 Post by shiftaling » Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:49 pm

Actually that city loop idea does potentially allay some concerns. Hopefully it eventuates!

Brucetiki
Legendary Member!
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:20 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1829 Post by Brucetiki » Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:04 pm

Kasey771 wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:11 pm
[Shuz] wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:08 pm
Does a grand junction really cost an extra $20m though? Are the tracks made of gold?
I dont know, but I'd imagine with an extra degree or three of complexity it would require more maintenance. There'd be that cost, plus imagine the bleating if KWS/North Tce intersection was shut for maintenance works every few months?
Plus there's issues like the retaining wall and what not.

Either way they would've went, the government would've been hounded by the media for it. If they did it, there would be the bleating about $20 million for nothing, the extra maintenance, and what not. They didn't, and there's the bleating about being short sighted.

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2006
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#1830 Post by rubberman » Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:36 pm

That Indaily report is BS.

Twenty million extra for a few extra turnouts? Pull the other one! That's patent nonsense.

Then the line that modern trams can't handle the same slopes as Adelaide's original 1909 trams could? What a crock. Modern trams can handle much greater slopes than that. Have Indaily people never been to Melbourne?

I am not an advocate for a grand union. Most tram operators avoid any unnecessary turnouts, and certainly don't put them in "just in case". However, coming up with fairy stories like $20m extra for a couple of extra turnouts, or that modern trams cant handle the slopes is stupid.

Makes you wonder if their "source" knows anything at all about trams.

Edit: It's just occurred to me that the slope limitation for trams could be referring to the Citadis. It might be that since the Citadis is actually a single truck "bib and bub" arrangement, turning plus slope change might crush the linkages between sections. That's just a speculation, so take it with a grain of salt. Having said that, single bogie designs are NOT modern. They were obsolete 100 years ago. A bib and bub tram with a modern sleek body is still limited by physics.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 5 guests