Sensational-Adelaide.com

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Mon May 07, 2018 4:29 pm

If there's one thing I remember back when I worked at DPTI and asked questions about the trams and the operational requirements, they do run it like a heavy rail system, not a light rail. So expect that to be factored into bridge design.

So, are you suggesting that DPTI doesn't want trams, so it is deliberately making them more expensive so they cannot be economic?

I wouldn't say deliberate, but given the sheer amount of incompetence, it wouldn't surprise me if they've missed a few of the basics. They really couldn't run a chook raffle.

I don't know if any one else has noticed that there will be 2 sets of traffic lights within about 100 m on King William Rd, 1 for the festival car park entrance and 1 for the Festival tram stop.

EBG wrote: ↑

Tue May 08, 2018 11:52 pm

I don't know if any one else has noticed that there will be 2 sets of traffic lights within about 100 m on King William Rd, 1 for the festival car park entrance and 1 for the Festival tram stop.

They'll sequence them to stop and go at the same time, just like other locations around Adelaide which have 2 traffic lights in close proximity. It shouldn't cause any delays if done correctly.

I think we already have had discussion about the City bridge (maybe a few months ago or so)… and why this bridge will need a thorough testing prior to track laying. There are so many variables in a life of any bridge as each one is unique in many ways. Now, it really does not matter that much what went over the bridge a long time ago. We are talking about 50 – 60 years ago when the last tram went over the bridge. What does matter is the bridge’s present condition, and how they will lay these tracks as there are several methods to do this on an existing bridge. So there are a lot of unknowns… and let’s hope for the best.

ml69 wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 12:20 am

They'll sequence them to stop and go at the same time, just like other locations around Adelaide which have 2 traffic lights in close proximity. It shouldn't cause any delays if done correctly

Haso wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 7:34 am

I think we already have had discussion about the City bridge (maybe a few months ago or so)… and why this bridge will need a thorough testing prior to track laying. There are so many variables in a life of any bridge as each one is unique in many ways. Now, it really does not matter that much what went over the bridge a long time ago. We are talking about 50 – 60 years ago when the last tram went over the bridge. What does matter is the bridge’s present condition, and how they will lay these tracks as there are several methods to do this on an existing bridge. So there are a lot of unknowns… and let’s hope for the best.

Haso, I am aware of that. However, if it's the case that the bridge has deteriorated and it's not safe, then why haven't limits been placed on it for all heavy traffic. Semi-trailers and buses still use the bridge. If it's unsafe, why haven't they been banned?

It's either safe, or it's not. If it's safe, we don’t need to spend the money strengthening it. If it's not safe, then the WHOLE bridge needs strengthening, or buses and semis banned from crossing. It's irrational to say that buses and semis are ok, but trams aren't.

What's at stake are 3 things:

Public safety. If it's unsafe, limit buses and semis NOW.

Waste of public money. If it's safe, wasting money on pointless strengthening is nothing short of criminal. It's just handing public money to contractors for no good outcome.

The economic viability of trams. If all tram bridges and track have to be designed to take suburban trains, then they never will be economically viable. Wasting money on a project will kill political support.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 11:03 am

Haso wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 7:34 am

I think we already have had discussion about the City bridge (maybe a few months ago or so)… and why this bridge will need a thorough testing prior to track laying. There are so many variables in a life of any bridge as each one is unique in many ways. Now, it really does not matter that much what went over the bridge a long time ago. We are talking about 50 – 60 years ago when the last tram went over the bridge. What does matter is the bridge’s present condition, and how they will lay these tracks as there are several methods to do this on an existing bridge. So there are a lot of unknowns… and let’s hope for the best.

Haso, I am aware of that. However, if it's the case that the bridge has deteriorated and it's not safe, then why haven't limits been placed on it for all heavy traffic. Semi-trailers and buses still use the bridge. If it's unsafe, why haven't they been banned?

It's either safe, or it's not. If it's safe, we don’t need to spend the money strengthening it. If it's not safe, then the WHOLE bridge needs strengthening, or buses and semis banned from crossing. It's irrational to say that buses and semis are ok, but trams aren't.

What's at stake are 3 things:

Public safety. If it's unsafe, limit buses and semis NOW.

Waste of public money. If it's safe, wasting money on pointless strengthening is nothing short of criminal. It's just handing public money to contractors for no good outcome.

The economic viability of trams. If all tram bridges and track have to be designed to take suburban trains, then they never will be economically viable. Wasting money on a project will kill political support.

I don’t think this is a black and white case… They will add tracks on the present structure and they need to check out if the present structure will sustain additional weight and movement…
BTW there are some nice old photos here https://collections.slsa.sa.gov.au/find ... ity+bridge

Haso wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 2:27 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 11:03 am

Haso wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 7:34 am

I think we already have had discussion about the City bridge (maybe a few months ago or so)… and why this bridge will need a thorough testing prior to track laying. There are so many variables in a life of any bridge as each one is unique in many ways. Now, it really does not matter that much what went over the bridge a long time ago. We are talking about 50 – 60 years ago when the last tram went over the bridge. What does matter is the bridge’s present condition, and how they will lay these tracks as there are several methods to do this on an existing bridge. So there are a lot of unknowns… and let’s hope for the best.

Haso, I am aware of that. However, if it's the case that the bridge has deteriorated and it's not safe, then why haven't limits been placed on it for all heavy traffic. Semi-trailers and buses still use the bridge. If it's unsafe, why haven't they been banned?

It's either safe, or it's not. If it's safe, we don’t need to spend the money strengthening it. If it's not safe, then the WHOLE bridge needs strengthening, or buses and semis banned from crossing. It's irrational to say that buses and semis are ok, but trams aren't.

What's at stake are 3 things:

Public safety. If it's unsafe, limit buses and semis NOW.

Waste of public money. If it's safe, wasting money on pointless strengthening is nothing short of criminal. It's just handing public money to contractors for no good outcome.

The economic viability of trams. If all tram bridges and track have to be designed to take suburban trains, then they never will be economically viable. Wasting money on a project will kill political support.

I don’t think this is a black and white case… They will add tracks on the present structure and they need to check out if the present structure will sustain additional weight and movement…
BTW there are some nice old photos here https://collections.slsa.sa.gov.au/find ... ity+bridge

They took tracks off, so when they replace them, the weight will be exactly the same. There's NO additional weight. Tracks same. Trams same. Bridge same.

Oh well that's it then
Engineer signing off

rubberman wrote:

Haso wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 2:27 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 11:03 am

Haso, I am aware of that. However, if it's the case that the bridge has deteriorated and it's not safe, then why haven't limits been placed on it for all heavy traffic. Semi-trailers and buses still use the bridge. If it's unsafe, why haven't they been banned?

It's either safe, or it's not. If it's safe, we don’t need to spend the money strengthening it. If it's not safe, then the WHOLE bridge needs strengthening, or buses and semis banned from crossing. It's irrational to say that buses and semis are ok, but trams aren't.

What's at stake are 3 things:

Public safety. If it's unsafe, limit buses and semis NOW.

Waste of public money. If it's safe, wasting money on pointless strengthening is nothing short of criminal. It's just handing public money to contractors for no good outcome.

The economic viability of trams. If all tram bridges and track have to be designed to take suburban trains, then they never will be economically viable. Wasting money on a project will kill political support.

I don’t think this is a black and white case… They will add tracks on the present structure and they need to check out if the present structure will sustain additional weight and movement…
BTW there are some nice old photos here https://collections.slsa.sa.gov.au/find ... ity+bridge

They took tracks off, so when they replace them, the weight will be exactly the same. There's NO additional weight. Tracks same. Trams same. Bridge same.

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 4:49 pm

Oh well that's it then
Engineer signing off

rubberman wrote:

Haso wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 2:27 pm

I don’t think this is a black and white case… They will add tracks on the present structure and they need to check out if the present structure will sustain additional weight and movement…
BTW there are some nice old photos here https://collections.slsa.sa.gov.au/find ... ity+bridge

They took tracks off, so when they replace them, the weight will be exactly the same. There's NO additional weight. Tracks same. Trams same. Bridge same.

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

I'm sort of hoping for some common sense.

If Melbourne didn't need to upgrade its bridges for new trams, and the load on this bridge isn't going to be any greater than it used to carry, doesn't that raise a question?

If, coincidentally, when this came up last time, and I checked the DPTI website, it had the design load for trams AND railcars as the same. That's changed after I pointed it out to them....the tram load disappeared, lol. Is it really sensible to design teack to take railcars? Common sense needed, not an engineering degree, surely?

Finally, whether we get a tram extension depends on it being economically viable. Using common sense, what is adding $10 million to the cost going to do? Common sense answer: It's going to make it less economic.

So, every common sense aspect of this says that DPTI needs to justify this work. No engineering or economics degrees required. Just common sense. The concern I have repeatedly raised is that if this work is needed for safety reasons because the bridge has deteriorated, what about the rest of the structure? Again, it's plain common sense.

I should also add that the Federal Budget allocation for SA infrastructure over the next four years is: $52m South Road, $50m Gawler electrification, and $60m for the Joy Baluch Bridge. That's it. The lot for SA in the next 4 years.

Chances of any Federal money for trams = 0.

Talking about bridges or extensions is pretty premature. Maybe some crumbs in four years before the next election. Given that South Road and Gawler electrification have been starved of Federal funding, any spare dollars are going to have to go there.

So, I guess arguments about bridges are academic.

Did a walkaround of the stops today.

East End and Gawler place, close to complete.

University, looks like a week or more, plenty of work to go.

Riverside, it looks like several weeks, based on how fast the other stops have progressed.

So, maybe mid May and a bit for the first test trams in North Terrace to East End. Maybe early June for Riverside at present rates of construction,.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 8:10 pm

I should also add that the Federal Budget allocation for SA infrastructure over the next four years is: $52m South Road, $50m Gawler electrification, and $60m for the Joy Baluch Bridge. That's it. The lot for SA in the next 4 years.

Chances of any Federal money for trams = 0.

Talking about bridges or extensions is pretty premature. Maybe some crumbs in four years before the next election. Given that South Road and Gawler electrification have been starved of Federal funding, any spare dollars are going to have to go there.

So, I guess arguments about bridges are academic.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 8:10 pm

I should also add that the Federal Budget allocation for SA infrastructure over the next four years is: $52m South Road, $50m Gawler electrification, and $60m for the Joy Baluch Bridge. That's it. The lot for SA in the next 4 years.

Chances of any Federal money for trams = 0.

Talking about bridges or extensions is pretty premature. Maybe some crumbs in four years before the next election. Given that South Road and Gawler electrification have been starved of Federal funding, any spare dollars are going to have to go there.

So, I guess arguments about bridges are academic.

There's a federal election that will be held at the earliest this year, but scheduled(due) next year.
Forget this budget's four year plan.
If Labor gets in, a lot of it will change. Not that I expect Marshall to work with Shorten on delivering infrastructure our state needs.