News & Discussion: Trams

[rubberman]

The lead time for that sort of special work is more than a couple of months, so the ACC are pushing it up hill. If the crossings and points are made locally, it may just be possible. If they are already on the high seas, the ACC has no hope.

[ml69]

I think the promised $500m was over 4 years.

Could get a heck of a lot of tram network built for that I reckon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really, maybe 1.5 - 2 lines at best. Still a lot more than they would get in Sydney!

$500M won't buy 1.5-2 lines. The going rate in today's dollars is $50-65M per km for a relatively straightforward extension with no tunnels and bridges. $100M+ per km if you have complexity with bridges and/or tunnels (look at costs for Sydney, Canberra and Gold Coast stage 2 light rail currently under construction).

Hence for $500M, we'll get about 8-10km of tramline.

[rubberman]

Actually, Australian costs for tram extensions are extremely high by world standards, and that is allowing for cost of living differences. The Swiss do it cheaper per Km, and their cost of living is higher.

So....SA has the potential to get it right.

The question is, will the Government put the effort into learning what is required? For the short sections we've done up to now, and the relatively small number of trams, it doesn't make a lot of difference. But when we are talking $500m from Canberra, and presumably another $500m to match from the State coffers, then we have to get away from buying Citadis, using expensive track laying methods and other gold plating. Ten million more or less on a short stretch is one thing, but for a billion dollar project, those decisions can make a few hundred million difference.

All I can say is, FFS DON'T go to France or the UK for ideas if you want to save money or have fast trams. Do go there for slow but nice looking trams and expensive track. Sydney will have some lovely trams running on 13kn of track for $2.5Bn.

[Brucetiki]

If we want decent, local trams, you can't really go past the E class trams Melbourne have - high capacity, comfortable, modern, decent looking.

[rubberman]

If we want decent, local trams, you can't really go past the E class trams Melbourne have - high capacity, comfortable, modern, decent looking.

I agree with that. However, they are quite expensive relative to similar quality European trams, and the rate of production is quite low. We'd have to be ordering them now if we wanted them in five years. The headline cost was $274 million for 20 E class trams! Now maybe that includes maintenance as well. However, if that were the tram cost, we simply could not afford them. You can get top of the range Škodas for about $5m each.

[Brucetiki]

If we want decent, local trams, you can't really go past the E class trams Melbourne have - high capacity, comfortable, modern, decent looking.

I agree with that. However, they are quite expensive relative to similar quality European trams, and the rate of production is quite low. We'd have to be ordering them now if we wanted them in five years. The headline cost was $274 million for 20 E class trams! Now maybe that includes maintenance as well. However, if that were the tram cost, we simply could not afford them. You can get top of the range Škodas for about $5m each.

So either way our friends at InDaily will kick up about them. If we build local, 'ZOMG so expensive'. If we get the cheaper OS ones, 'ZOMG we're not building local'.

[adelaide transport]

If you think like that-whats your answer/solution?

[rubberman]

If you think like that-whats your answer/solution?

Not sure if that's directed at me, but I thank you for the opportunity.

Firstly, let's look at what's at stake. In Sydney, for $2.5Bn, they're getting 13kM of slooow tram line. Potentially for the same money they could have gotten 49kM or more, including trams, and fast...like "Bondi" tram fast.

So, gold plate and overbuild and a slow 13kM system, or build to Swiss, German, Czech, Polish standards and have 40kM of fast trams. Oh and possibly cheaper.

That means costing the alternatives, making the choices transparent, then debating those alternatives so that the Indaily or Advertiser have to choose one or the other, rather than just come up with one "solution" without a lot of public input.

The idea of government putting up one solution and telling us to suck it up might work when the public service has huge depths of expertise. That's not the case here. No criticism of DPTI, btw, but nobody can develop a depth of expertise with one tram line. So it has to be brought in from Germany, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland where the expertise exists.

[Patrick_27]

If you think like that-whats your answer/solution?

Not sure if that's directed at me, but I thank you for the opportunity.

Firstly, let's look at what's at stake. In Sydney, for $2.5Bn, they're getting 13kM of slooow tram line. Potentially for the same money they could have gotten 49kM or more, including trams, and fast...like "Bondi" tram fast.

So, gold plate and overbuild and a slow 13kM system, or build to Swiss, German, Czech, Polish standards and have 40kM of fast trams. Oh and possibly cheaper.

That means costing the alternatives, making the choices transparent, then debating those alternatives so that the Indaily or Advertiser have to choose one or the other, rather than just come up with one "solution" without a lot of public input.

The idea of government putting up one solution and telling us to suck it up might work when the public service has huge depths of expertise. That's not the case here. No criticism of DPTI, btw, but nobody can develop a depth of expertise with one tram line. So it has to be brought in from Germany, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland where the expertise exists.

Your comment makes little to no sense? You're talking about systems in place elsewhere in the world, without factoring in local scenarios. Unions, minimum wage, high cost of manufacturing, local industry, climate even.

[PeFe]

Firstly, let's look at what's at stake. In Sydney, for $2.5Bn, they're getting 13kM of slooow tram line. Potentially for the same money they could have gotten 49kM or more, including trams, and fast...like "Bondi" tram fast.

So, gold plate and overbuild and a slow 13kM system, or build to Swiss, German, Czech, Polish standards and have 40kM of fast trams. Oh and possibly cheaper.

The "Bondi " tram was historically "fast" because basically it didn't stop to pick up passengers, it merely "slowed down". Just imagine to try to do that these days.......

I am still no wiser how the new Sydney tram lines are "gold plated" and you offer no details on how the money could have been better spent.......what do you mean?......less stops, cheaper trams, less trams (?)...the devil is always in the detail.

[rubberman]

Firstly, let's look at what's at stake. In Sydney, for $2.5Bn, they're getting 13kM of slooow tram line. Potentially for the same money they could have gotten 49kM or more, including trams, and fast...like "Bondi" tram fast.

So, gold plate and overbuild and a slow 13kM system, or build to Swiss, German, Czech, Polish standards and have 40kM of fast trams. Oh and possibly cheaper.

The "Bondi " tram was historically "fast" because basically it didn't stop to pick up passengers, it merely "slowed down". Just imagine to try to do that these days.......

I am still no wiser how the new Sydney tram lines are "gold plated" and you offer no details on how the money could have been better spent.......what do you mean?......less stops, cheaper trams, less trams (?)...the devil is always in the detail.

Just google images of the track construction. Huge amounts of hand placed reinforcement, highly labour intensive. There are pictures of existing track in George Street from the old tram days with half the concrete depth and no reinforcement. Similarly, there's images around of Melbourne track construction from the 1960s, again laid with almost no reinforcement...fifty year proven life. Then there's the no-overhead sections. Also massively expensive. Then, look at the areas of overhead construction. Much more massive than the similar applications in Melbourne, Gold Coast or Adelaide. Then there's the fact that the track follows much of former tram alignments,. So, why on earth is the track more massive and reinforced? Trams ran over these stretches without that before, so why now?

As for the speed. Nope. Just ride on the existing line in Sydney coming out of Central Station. It's walking speed. In Sydney in the old days, it was faster, much faster.

Cheaper trams. The headline price on the Melbourne Es is $13m. Equivalent or better trams such as the Škoda 15T are about $5m.

[Torrens_5022]

E class trams wouldn't work in Adelaide, they're too wide 2.65m, Adelaide uses 2.40m trams, would it be easy (cheap) to modify the design.

[PeFe]

Firstly, let's look at what's at stake. In Sydney, for $2.5Bn, they're getting 13kM of slooow tram line. Potentially for the same money they could have gotten 49kM or more, including trams, and fast...like "Bondi" tram fast.

So, gold plate and overbuild and a slow 13kM system, or build to Swiss, German, Czech, Polish standards and have 40kM of fast trams. Oh and possibly cheaper.

The "Bondi " tram was historically "fast" because basically it didn't stop to pick up passengers, it merely "slowed down". Just imagine to try to do that these days.......

I am still no wiser how the new Sydney tram lines are "gold plated" and you offer no details on how the money could have been better spent.......what do you mean?......less stops, cheaper trams, less trams (?)...the devil is always in the detail.

Just google images of the track construction. Huge amounts of hand placed reinforcement, highly labour intensive. There are pictures of existing track in George Street from the old tram days with half the concrete depth and no reinforcement. Similarly, there's images around of Melbourne track construction from the 1960s, again laid with almost no reinforcement...fifty year proven life. Then there's the no-overhead sections. Also massively expensive. Then, look at the areas of overhead construction. Much more massive than the similar applications in Melbourne, Gold Coast or Adelaide. Then there's the fact that the track follows much of former tram alignments,. So, why on earth is the track more massive and reinforced? Trams ran over these stretches without that before, so why now?

As for the speed. Nope. Just ride on the existing line in Sydney coming out of Central Station. It's walking speed. In Sydney in the old days, it was faster, much faster.

Cheaper trams. The headline price on the Melbourne Es is $13m. Equivalent or better trams such as the Škoda 15T are about $5m.

Honestly I am no transport engineer, but comparing Sydney's legacy tram system (built in the 1920's?) to modern day standards is absurd.
For starters the new Sydney trams will the worlds longest ( and very heavy....not at all like the 1920's trams that ran up and down George st) You simply must engineer the track to meet modern tram sizes and current safety standards.
All tram systems that travel in heavily trafficked/pedestrian areas are slow.....in Melbourne, Sydney, Prague, Manchester...what is your slow solution to this problem? (Apart from a cbd tram tunnel which the Germans prefer)
Yes the catenary free section of George St makes it much more expensive, also Sydney has more infrastructure to by-pass if you are building a new tram line , like the Easter Distributor/ South Dowling Street.
Having said that the new tram lines out of Paramatta should be cheaper to build........less traffic issues/more space etc.

[rubberman]

The "Bondi " tram was historically "fast" because basically it didn't stop to pick up passengers, it merely "slowed down". Just imagine to try to do that these days.......

I am still no wiser how the new Sydney tram lines are "gold plated" and you offer no details on how the money could have been better spent.......what do you mean?......less stops, cheaper trams, less trams (?)...the devil is always in the detail.

Just google images of the track construction. Huge amounts of hand placed reinforcement, highly labour intensive. There are pictures of existing track in George Street from the old tram days with half the concrete depth and no reinforcement. Similarly, there's images around of Melbourne track construction from the 1960s, again laid with almost no reinforcement...fifty year proven life. Then there's the no-overhead sections. Also massively expensive. Then, look at the areas of overhead construction. Much more massive than the similar applications in Melbourne, Gold Coast or Adelaide. Then there's the fact that the track follows much of former tram alignments,. So, why on earth is the track more massive and reinforced? Trams ran over these stretches without that before, so why now?

As for the speed. Nope. Just ride on the existing line in Sydney coming out of Central Station. It's walking speed. In Sydney in the old days, it was faster, much faster.

Cheaper trams. The headline price on the Melbourne Es is $13m. Equivalent or better trams such as the Škoda 15T are about $5m.

Honestly I am no transport engineer, but comparing Sydney's legacy tram system (built in the 1920's?) to modern day standards is absurd.
For starters the new Sydney trams will the worlds longest ( and very heavy....not at all like the 1920's trams that ran up and down George st) You simply must engineer the track to meet modern tram sizes and current safety standards.
All tram systems that travel in heavily trafficked/pedestrian areas are slow.....in Melbourne, Sydney, Prague, Manchester...what is your slow solution to this problem? (Apart from a cbd tram tunnel which the Germans prefer)
Yes the catenary free section of George St makes it much more expensive, also Sydney has more infrastructure to by-pass if you are building a new tram line , like the Easter Distributor/ South Dowling Street.
Having said that the new tram lines out of Paramatta should be cheaper to build........less traffic issues/more space etc.

Sorry, but other cities carrying more passengers than Sydney can run cheaper trams on cheaper track in narrower streets faster. Saying it can't be done is not an acceptable answer. Prague and Budapest, for example can do it faster and cheaper WITH modern trams, then suggestions that somehow Sydney is special are absurd.

I refuse to accept excuses for mediocrity. Sydney is worse than mediocre, it is a blatant example of the worst practice in provision of infrastructure that infects this country. Excuses as to why Sydney can't do what other cities do as a matter of course are bad enough, but when gross underachievement is coupled to extortionate costs, then frankly Sydney would be better off with buses.

If people in government don't think it can be done better, they ought to be sent to other parts of the world where it IS done better and made to learn, and not come back till they have learned.

[PeFe]

I have been to Prague, and I do not remember the trams being particularly fast. Not been to Budapest.
How many cars are on the roads of Prague and Budapest have compared to Sydney?
Sure 1940's trams could whiz along Sydney streets........because safety standards were different and there were virtually no cars ( compared to modern Sydney)
Building costs reflect each society, we live in a high wage, high standard of living country with high safety standards.
I do not disagree that the new Sydney tram line could have been built at a slightly lower cost but this new cliche that all transport projects are "gold plated" is really tiresome, especially when you provide no details on how you would actually speed up the current Sydney tram.