Sensational-Adelaide.com

A-Town wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:25 pm

So why was the Glenelg line kept? Was it the most economically viable line, or was it because it was seen as an important tourist link from the city to Adelaide's most popular beach?

I think it was because it was a line to a popular destination, as well as being the only tramline NOT running on a road.

A-Town wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:25 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:17 pm

The only point that might have been worth arguing is whether or not there were one or two economically viable lines they could have kept recycilg some of the better rail, trams and equipment. That might have been Henley to Kensington, or maybe Unley and/or Colonel Light Gardens. However, then as now, people prefer something shiny and new, rather than reworking old plant. It's actually a surprise they kept the Glenelg line. The deLeuw Cather report which condemned the trams certainly proposed scrapping the Glenelg line.

So why was the Glenelg line kept? Was it the most economically viable line, or was it because it was seen as an important tourist link from the city to Adelaide's most popular beach?

Nobody really knows. It might be that since the Glenelg trams were more modern in appearance and such things as folding doors compared to older trams which were partly open to the weather and slower, the upgrade to buses didn't offer that much. Plus, the cost of converting the line to a bus road which likely would have been taken over by the Highways Department and then opened up for cars at the first excuse.

However, that's just my take, and is as much a guess as anyone else's.

I would have liked the MTT to have at least considered building the 40 H1 cars and running a smaller system based on recycling some of the existing rail, poles and overhead on selected lines. It would have left a core system for the present effort to build upon.

Latest additions to our tram fleet for the tram extensions-3 (ex Madrid) Citadis arrived at Outer Harbour this morning.

Going off of several reports on Facebook (I’m happy to be corrected as I haven’t been able to investigate in person), Madrid Citadis 154 was delivered to Glengowrie Depot from Outer Harbour during the night.

I wonder how many trams Glengowrie is capable of holding - must be reaching the limit. Not many tracks AFAIK.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Another tram may have been delivered to the depot, just saw police escort vehicle and trucks with yellow hazard flashes at the front, unfortunately didn’t see what they were carrying.

Will409 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:51 am

Going off of several reports on Facebook (I’m happy to be corrected as I haven’t been able to investigate in person), Madrid Citadis 154 was delivered to Glengowrie Depot from Outer Harbour during the night.

I'm a tram fan...what FB page please?

skyliner wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:18 pm

I wonder how many trams Glengowrie is capable of holding - must be reaching the limit. Not many tracks AFAIK.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

Which brings us to the question of where would they stable a larger fleet of trams if the extensions to the suburbs ever happened.

Any ideas?

Well I do recall where the depot was going to go for the western suburbs tram proposal (West Lakes / Grange) being the vacant block bordering West Lakes Boulevard, Philip Crescent and Circuit Drive.

The only viable option I can see for a depot to service the Norwood / Eastern suburbs trams is possibly on the Housing Trust block which occupies 30-48 Rundle Street. This block is state government owned land, so they could just build new social housing elsewhere in the neighbourhood (probably as a joint venture with a private developer) whereby 15-20% of a new apartment building could be reserved for social housing - which is what tends to happen interstate.

Ideally you'd have a depot near the end of each (major) line to reduce dead running.

I could see something at the northern end of the Adelaide Airport site. Maybe even the old Masters site?

Westside wrote:Ideally you'd have a depot near the end of each (major) line to reduce dead running.

If the transport department are smart they’ll wait until they’ve got funding for the next segment of the Adelink project from the Feds and that segment would contain the new depot. Means it will look more expensive but would driver the depot that seems to be needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They could do ProspectLINK next, run it up Churchill road and repurpose the Islington workshops as a tram depot

Prospectlink should run via Prospect Road, you have two shopping strips on Prospect Road a depot could be built in the industrial area south of Grand Junction Road. Churchill Road runs parallel to the train line, which once electrified will have a higher frequency. Run it up O'Connell Street onto Prospect Road and have it terminate in Kilburn, it's the simplest most direct route.