Sensational-Adelaide.com

bits wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:32 am

rubberman wrote:

Shuz wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:26 am

Someone mentioned before about the King William Street bridge over the River Torrens. I do recall reading an article somewhere that work needed to be done to the bridge so that it can handle the load of today's heavier trams - was about $10m to $20m worth of engineering works needed to be done to bring it up to standard.

The axle loads on the Flexities is about the same as an H car fully laden. So, it's a puzzle.

Isn't there more cars so more axles on the new trams? A single pressure point load is important but also the total load is important for a bridge.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:50 am

bits wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:32 am

rubberman wrote:
The axle loads on the Flexities is about the same as an H car fully laden. So, it's a puzzle.

Isn't there more cars so more axles on the new trams? A single pressure point load is important but also the total load is important for a bridge.

A coupled set of H cars is plenty heavy and 8 axles. Plus, bridge design in those days, as today would have required the heaviest load combination available, so as many coupled sets of H cars as could fit on the bridge is likely. How can they fit anything heavier on now?

Look, I don't know. It's just really odd.

Put it another way. People often complain about how much politicians are paid. Were a Minister to question this oddity, and find that indeed the bridge, like those in Melbourne was designed to be stuffed full of trams, they'd have saved the taxpayer their full salary plus perks for one decision.

I'd say, let the engineers tell us why it was possible then, but not now?

Tonsley213 wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:40 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:50 am

bits wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:32 am

Isn't there more cars so more axles on the new trams? A single pressure point load is important but also the total load is important for a bridge.

A coupled set of H cars is plenty heavy and 8 axles. Plus, bridge design in those days, as today would have required the heaviest load combination available, so as many coupled sets of H cars as could fit on the bridge is likely. How can they fit anything heavier on now?

Look, I don't know. It's just really odd.

Put it another way. People often complain about how much politicians are paid. Were a Minister to question this oddity, and find that indeed the bridge, like those in Melbourne was designed to be stuffed full of trams, they'd have saved the taxpayer their full salary plus perks for one decision.

I'd say, let the engineers tell us why it was possible then, but not now?

They may well have to bring the bridge up to modern standards. As is often the case when you modify something old and need it re certified.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:44 pm

Tonsley213 wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:40 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:50 am

A coupled set of H cars is plenty heavy and 8 axles. Plus, bridge design in those days, as today would have required the heaviest load combination available, so as many coupled sets of H cars as could fit on the bridge is likely. How can they fit anything heavier on now?

Look, I don't know. It's just really odd.

Put it another way. People often complain about how much politicians are paid. Were a Minister to question this oddity, and find that indeed the bridge, like those in Melbourne was designed to be stuffed full of trams, they'd have saved the taxpayer their full salary plus perks for one decision.

I'd say, let the engineers tell us why it was possible then, but not now?

They may well have to bring the bridge up to modern standards. As is often the case when you modify something old and need it re certified.

You'd like to think that having run trams 18 hours a day for 27 years, that if modern standards require an update, and thus expenditure of a few millions, then the experts ought to be heavily questioned, in detail. The whole point of scientific and engineering progress is to make things cheaper and better. Making something that was good for thirty odd years more expensive deserves a "Please explain!" at the very least.

One of the fundamental jobs of Parliament is to apply reality checks, and "Please explain!" requests to public policy.

Like I said, there may be a good reason. Fine. However, this just screams out for a whole lot of Parliamentary attention. If the Libs, and the Advertiser were to concentrate on things like this where millions are involved, rather than a few pissy hours when O-bahn buses have to take a different route, I'd say they were doing their job. That is, holding the government to account.

Haso wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:15 am

I had a bit of time this morning... Seems to be going very well.

Haso wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:57 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:44 pm

Tonsley213 wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:40 pm

They may well have to bring the bridge up to modern standards. As is often the case when you modify something old and need it re certified.

You'd like to think that having run trams 18 hours a day for 27 years, that if modern standards require an update, and thus expenditure of a few millions, then the experts ought to be heavily questioned, in detail. The whole point of scientific and engineering progress is to make things cheaper and better. Making something that was good for thirty odd years more expensive deserves a "Please explain!" at the very least.

One of the fundamental jobs of Parliament is to apply reality checks, and "Please explain!" requests to public policy.

Like I said, there may be a good reason. Fine. However, this just screams out for a whole lot of Parliamentary attention. If the Libs, and the Advertiser were to concentrate on things like this where millions are involved, rather than a few pissy hours when O-bahn buses have to take a different route, I'd say they were doing their job. That is, holding the government to account.

There is another thing why is so important to check the bridge before any decision. Every bridge has its life span and this one is more than 87 years old. An average concrete bridge has a life span of 70 years… so it really does not matter what for is the bridge build 80 years ago if it is not in a good shape...
.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Haso wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:57 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:44 pm

You'd like to think that having run trams 18 hours a day for 27 years, that if modern standards require an update, and thus expenditure of a few millions, then the experts ought to be heavily questioned, in detail. The whole point of scientific and engineering progress is to make things cheaper and better. Making something that was good for thirty odd years more expensive deserves a "Please explain!" at the very least.

One of the fundamental jobs of Parliament is to apply reality checks, and "Please explain!" requests to public policy.

Like I said, there may be a good reason. Fine. However, this just screams out for a whole lot of Parliamentary attention. If the Libs, and the Advertiser were to concentrate on things like this where millions are involved, rather than a few pissy hours when O-bahn buses have to take a different route, I'd say they were doing their job. That is, holding the government to account.

There is another thing why is so important to check the bridge before any decision. Every bridge has its life span and this one is more than 87 years old. An average concrete bridge has a life span of 70 years… so it really does not matter what for is the bridge build 80 years ago if it is not in a good shape...
.

But there's no suggestion that it is in bad shape. If so, then why isn't it being rebuilt anyway? Yes, by all means, if the bridge is unsafe, rebuild it. However, at the moment, apparently it's unsafe for trams but cars and buses are ok? Frankly, cars, trucks and buses have become heavier, but trams have not. Next, bridges may or may not have a life span of 70 years. That depends on a lot of things. If the concrete and steel has not corroded, the bridge may be better than the day it was built - concrete strength increases with age.

Ser Noit of Loit wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:56 pm

DTPI bloke says the trams will be going from Glenelg to Victoria Square.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY7xfHMQv0M

I see now there's a crossover track just before the vic squre tram stop which would let them turn around and go back the other way.

timtam20292 wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:36 pm

Ser Noit of Loit wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:56 pm

DTPI bloke says the trams will be going from Glenelg to Victoria Square.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY7xfHMQv0M

I see now there's a crossover track just before the vic squre tram stop which would let them turn around and go back the other way.

That's whilst construction is happening, Victoria Square is as far as the trams can go right now.