Sensational-Adelaide.com

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:32 pm

I can't wait until we have driverless trams. That will mean we can have high frequency public transport 24/7. This is the direction the government should be taking, instead of driverless cars.

Just because we can have 24/7 operation doesn't mean we will. Apparently the driverless bus in Munno Para does not operate on weekends or public holidays. I haven't heard if it meets the first and last trains. Driverless Trams would probably join the same union.

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:32 pm

I can't wait until we have driverless trams. That will mean we can have high frequency public transport 24/7. This is the direction the government should be taking, instead of driverless cars.

I don’t think driverless trams will become a thing until driverless cars become the main form of driving, if at all.

Driverless trains and metros are easier/safer since they can be created as closed systems either grade separated or in fully isolated tunnels. Trams in general are so heavily integrated with street-running sections and level crossings that the human factor is still necessary and would be more difficult to remove.

SBD wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:08 pm

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:32 pm

I can't wait until we have driverless trams. That will mean we can have high frequency public transport 24/7. This is the direction the government should be taking, instead of driverless cars.

Just because we can have 24/7 operation doesn't mean we will. Apparently the driverless bus in Munno Para does not operate on weekends or public holidays. I haven't heard if it meets the first and last trains. Driverless Trams would probably join the same union.

The "driverless" buses in operation at the moment still need to have someone on board. When you eliminate that need, there's no reason to not run 24/7. It makes people less anxious of getting stuck.

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:41 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:08 pm

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:32 pm

I can't wait until we have driverless trams. That will mean we can have high frequency public transport 24/7. This is the direction the government should be taking, instead of driverless cars.

Just because we can have 24/7 operation doesn't mean we will. Apparently the driverless bus in Munno Para does not operate on weekends or public holidays. I haven't heard if it meets the first and last trains. Driverless Trams would probably join the same union.

The "driverless" buses in operation at the moment still need to have someone on board. When you eliminate that need, there's no reason to not run 24/7. It makes people less anxious of getting stuck.

The driver is not the only staff member required to operate a transport system, in fact their wage is a very small part of the cost of transport. Depot workers and support staff would still be required and probably won't be thrilled about working 24/7. Just because a bus is driverless, doesn't mean you can simply push the start-driverless mode at 5pm and hope it's still running perfectly when you get back to the office at 9am. The cost of providing a 24/7 transport system in ADL will still be prohibitive for many decades to come, even with driverless technology.

I'm in Prague atm, and I noticed this dirt cheap piece of equipment for getting rid of corrugations in rails, such as afflict most of our King William Street stops. How cheap is that?

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:10 am

I'm in Prague atm, and I noticed this dirt cheap piece of equipment for getting rid of corrugations in rails, such as afflict most of our King William Street stops. How cheap is that?

This is what you're looking at, it's a railgrinder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgrinder I'm sure the DPTI has a few.

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:33 am

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:10 am

I'm in Prague atm, and I noticed this dirt cheap piece of equipment for getting rid of corrugations in rails, such as afflict most of our King William Street stops. How cheap is that?

This is what you're looking at, it's a railgrinder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgrinder I'm sure the DPTI has a few.

Well, you'd think if they had any, they'd do something about the corrugations and noisy rail joints. I mean they had no trams running for several weeks, so it doesn't take much to think of grinding away the noisy rail joints and corrugations. No overtime required, no night working, no safety issues worrying about trams.

I think we’ve established many times that DPTI can’t pat their head and run their tummy at the same time.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:31 am

I think we’ve established many times that DPTI can’t pat their head and run their tummy at the same time.

I can't run my tummy either, but when my tummy runs...

Without dredging up an old circular argument, does anyone here know the actual reason the original coast to coast concept including dual voltage tram/train element on the OH line was canned? I thought I read it got canned because the technology for dual voltage trams was not feasible, and it became an either or thing. (either heavy or light rail). I was reading on another forum that dual voltage trams are used in many places in Europe, where light rail has to leave street running, and travel on normal electrified heavy rail to a neighbouring town for example, then back to street running. there was even examples of electric/diesel trams, that could run on overhead power, then convert to a diesel motor where the overhead did not/could not exist? Was it a cost thing, or just in the too hard basket and they chickened out.

claybro wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:13 pm

Without dredging up an old circular argument, does anyone here know the actual reason the original coast to coast concept including dual voltage tram/train element on the OH line was canned? I thought I read it got canned because the technology for dual voltage trams was not feasible, and it became an either or thing. (either heavy or light rail). I was reading on another forum that dual voltage trams are used in many places in Europe, where light rail has to leave street running, and travel on normal electrified heavy rail to a neighbouring town for example, then back to street running. there was even examples of electric/diesel trams, that could run on overhead power, then convert to a diesel motor where the overhead did not/could not exist? Was it a cost thing, or just in the too hard basket and they chickened out.

The electrification system is not a problem and it's used in other cities, often called the "Karlsruhe model": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_model

What I question is how the trams will use the same stations as the trains. They have totally different loading gauges (2.4 m wide v 3.2 m wide) so how will that work?

I found the map with the planned tram-train network, it's on page 3 here: http://www.ppt.asn.au/pubdocs/newconnbudgetfinweb.pdf Interesting that Seaford wasn't on the map at the time, yet they built that and nothing that's on this map!

Not 100% convinced yet about train-trams but still an interesting example of such a system is the Sheffield Supertram in the UK. Since 2018 they’ve been running upgraded stock on a small section of the National Rail network between Meadowhall South and Rotherham. The rest of the network is on normal tram lines.

Their tram-trains (handful of their normal trams with upgraded safety features to comply with train standards) run on the National Rail lines between stations. At the first station the lower tram platform is immediately before the taller train platform, at the terminus the tram diverges onto its own track stub.

See this video (skip to 18min for the transfer): https://youtu.be/WFEMjGBcTSE

What is with the total deteriorated landscaping at the Festival Centre tram stop. Have the ACC washed their hands of it? It's an absolute disgrace.
This is the one of Adelaide's icon destination points and the area surrounding the Tram stop looks like something one would see in a third world country FFS.

claybro wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:13 pm

Without dredging up an old circular argument, does anyone here know the actual reason the original coast to coast concept including dual voltage tram/train element on the OH line was canned? I thought I read it got canned because the technology for dual voltage trams was not feasible, and it became an either or thing. (either heavy or light rail). I was reading on another forum that dual voltage trams are used in many places in Europe, where light rail has to leave street running, and travel on normal electrified heavy rail to a neighbouring town for example, then back to street running. there was even examples of electric/diesel trams, that could run on overhead power, then convert to a diesel motor where the overhead did not/could not exist? Was it a cost thing, or just in the too hard basket and they chickened out.

I would suggest two factors in the abandonment. One of the drivers for the tram/train was to service Football Park at West Lakes. This was removed by the Adelaide Oval redevelopment initiated in 2010. The second factor was the need for gauge conversion. As this would have involved the entire AdMet network including the depot and stabling facilities and conversion of all rolling stock, it would have entailed extended system closures and logistical compexity.

PD2/20 wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:04 am

[quote=claybro post_id=183583 time=<a href="tel:1565750588">1565750588</a> user_id=5463]
Without dredging up an old circular argument, does anyone here know the actual reason the original coast to coast concept including dual voltage tram/train element on the OH line was canned? I thought I read it got canned because the technology for dual voltage trams was not feasible, and it became an either or thing. (either heavy or light rail). I was reading on another forum that dual voltage trams are used in many places in Europe, where light rail has to leave street running, and travel on normal electrified heavy rail to a neighbouring town for example, then back to street running. there was even examples of electric/diesel trams, that could run on overhead power, then convert to a diesel motor where the overhead did not/could not exist? Was it a cost thing, or just in the too hard basket and they chickened out.

I would suggest two factors in the abandonment. One of the drivers for the tram/train was to service Football Park at West Lakes. This was removed by the Adelaide Oval redevelopment initiated in 2010. The second factor was the need for gauge conversion. As this would have involved the entire AdMet network including the depot and stabling facilities and conversion of all rolling stock, it would have entailed extended system closures and logistical compexity.
[/quote]

Yes I understood gauge was part of the issue, but that is also covered in Eurooe by dual gauge tracks. Even without AAMI stadium now, the Wrst Lakes area is becoming quite high density and should be served by rail. Surely the combination of heavy rail serving the longer OH line and light rail using the same corridors but multiple branches was the ideal outcome for the North West. I don't get why it is so hard, when the technology already exists, as does the corridor.