Sensational-Adelaide.com

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Fri May 07, 2021 10:08 pm

how good is he wrote:If the Crows HQs moves to Bowden (vs Thebarton) a new tram extension/stop down Port Rd (between say Chief St and Milner St) could service this and also Hindmarsh stadium.
I would also like one more tram stop to AO but I have read that just the bridge would first need $50m spent for this to occur.

That $50m figure is based on some erroneous early opinion, based on reinforcement for the bridge for 'heavy rail' - which a tramline is not.

I hope we’re not going to get into the argument about the structural integrity of the King William Street Bridge over the Torrens?

Maybe someone can answer these questions for me before the thread goes down that path again.

• When was the bridge built?
• When did the bridge last undergo major works?
• What’s the average lifespan of a ridge of this type?
• Why are heavy vehicles required to detour this bridge?

prometheus2704 wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Fri May 07, 2021 10:08 pm

how good is he wrote:If the Crows HQs moves to Bowden (vs Thebarton) a new tram extension/stop down Port Rd (between say Chief St and Milner St) could service this and also Hindmarsh stadium.
I would also like one more tram stop to AO but I have read that just the bridge would first need $50m spent for this to occur.

That $50m figure is based on some erroneous early opinion, based on reinforcement for the bridge for 'heavy rail' - which a tramline is not.

I hope we’re not going to get into the argument about the structural integrity of the King William Street Bridge over the Torrens?

Maybe someone can answer these questions for me before the thread goes down that path again.

• When was the bridge built?
• When did the bridge last undergo major works?
• What’s the average lifespan of a ridge of this type?
• Why are heavy vehicles required to detour this bridge?

No argument from me - the bridge will definitely need reinforcement.

Just not to serve heavy rail.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 12:10 am

prometheus2704 wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Fri May 07, 2021 10:08 pm

That $50m figure is based on some erroneous early opinion, based on reinforcement for the bridge for 'heavy rail' - which a tramline is not.

I hope we’re not going to get into the argument about the structural integrity of the King William Street Bridge over the Torrens?

Maybe someone can answer these questions for me before the thread goes down that path again.

• When was the bridge built?
• When did the bridge last undergo major works?
• What’s the average lifespan of a ridge of this type?
• Why are heavy vehicles required to detour this bridge?

No argument from me - the bridge will definitely need reinforcement.

Just not to serve heavy rail.

Amen. Plus, of course, let's face it, IF the bridge is past its use-by date, then lets upgrade it all at once, rather than half for trams, then another half some time later for cars and buses. That was the approach for the Port Road Bridge, and was sensible. Designing the Adelaide City Bridge for heavy rail, and also without taking the opportunity to upgrade for other traffic was destined to make trams uneconomic. Plus, I would point out that bus axle loads are pretty close to tram axle loads, so if the bridge really is that bad that trams can't use it without upgrading, it can't be that much further in time till an upgrade for them is required.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 9:57 am

Amen. Plus, of course, let's face it, IF the bridge is past its use-by date, then lets upgrade it all at once, rather than half for trams, then another half some time later for cars and buses. That was the approach for the Port Road Bridge, and was sensible.
...

I assume that you are referring to the Port Road Bridge over the Torrens (also known as the Hindmarsh Bridge) rather than the bridge over the railway near the Police Barracks. However wasn't it the case that both bridges were built with separate spans for the outbound and citybound lanes and that an additional span was added later in the median to carry the tram tracks. The present Hindmarsh Bridge was constructed in 1995-96. See Sections 5.6 and 5.7 in https://portal.engineersaustralia.org.a ... 202014.pdf for descriptions of the Hindmarsh Bridge work.

PD2/20 wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 2:16 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 9:57 am

Amen. Plus, of course, let's face it, IF the bridge is past its use-by date, then lets upgrade it all at once, rather than half for trams, then another half some time later for cars and buses. That was the approach for the Port Road Bridge, and was sensible.
...

I assume that you are referring to the Port Road Bridge over the Torrens (also known as the Hindmarsh Bridge) rather than the bridge over the railway near the Police Barracks. However wasn't it the case that both bridges were built with separate spans for the outbound and citybound lanes and that an additional span was added later in the median to carry the tram tracks. The present Hindmarsh Bridge was constructed in 1995-96. See Sections 5.6 and 5.7 in https://portal.engineersaustralia.org.a ... 202014.pdf for descriptions of the Hindmarsh Bridge work.

Yes, as it was presented at the time, the only work to be done on the Adelaide Bridge was the tram track. No overall plan for minimising overall cost. The way the Hindmarsh Bridge was done was to leave a nice clear section to put trams on. There's no complaint about that from me.

Bib and Bub Citadis heading to Victoria Square.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:26 pm

Bib and Bub Citadis heading to Victoria Square.

Strange, do we know why a tram coming from the RAH/Ent Ctr is terminating at Vic Square? I've only ever heard of Vic Square terminating trams coming from Glenelg, didn't know they did it for North Terrace trams. There isn't a crossover to send them back to North Terrace, unless it crosses over at Rundle Mall and goes the "wrong" way down KWS, or kicks all passengers off at Vic Square and returns to Glengowrie or the South Terrace turnback?

Spotto wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:58 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:26 pm

Bib and Bub Citadis heading to Victoria Square.

Strange, do we know why a tram coming from the RAH/Ent Ctr is terminating at Victoria Square? I've only ever heard of Victoria Square terminating trams coming from Glenelg, didn't know they did it for North Terrace trams.

The Botanic Line between North Terrace and Botanic Gardens is out of action due to infrastructure fault - the Botanic Line trams are being diverted to Victoria Square as a result.

Spotto wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:58 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:26 pm

Bib and Bub Citadis heading to Victoria Square.

Strange, do we know why a tram coming from the RAH/Ent Ctr is terminating at Vic Square? I've only ever heard of Vic Square terminating trams coming from Glenelg, didn't know they did it for North Terrace trams. There isn't a crossover to send them back to North Terrace, unless it crosses over at Rundle Mall and goes the "wrong" way down KWS, or kicks all passengers off at Vic Square and returns to Glengowrie or the South Terrace turnback?

Surely the crossover at the S end of the Vic Sq stop can be used to reverse trams from North Terrace. Tram arrives at southbound platform, then heads on to beyond crossover and reverses over crossover into northbound platform before leaving towards North Tce.

Maybe there is not enough room available at the Entertainment Centre and along the track to store all those extra trams.

Norman wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:43 pm

Maybe there is not enough room available at the Entertainment Centre and along the track to store all those extra trams.

Hi, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Why do they need extra trams?

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:13 pm

Norman wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:43 pm

Maybe there is not enough room available at the Entertainment Centre and along the track to store all those extra trams.

Hi, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Why do they need extra trams?

Normally some of those trams will be in the Adelaide Railway Station to Botanic Gardens corridor, but if that section is closed off they will need to be somewhere else in the system.

Norman wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:41 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:13 pm

Norman wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:43 pm

Maybe there is not enough room available at the Entertainment Centre and along the track to store all those extra trams.

Hi, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Why do they need extra trams?

Normally some of those trams will be in the Adelaide Railway Station to Botanic Gardens corridor, but if that section is closed off they will need to be somewhere else in the system.

Ah. That "somewhere else" is between Vic Square and Nth Tce. That distance and time is about the same as between the Botanic Garden and King William Street. So it suits quite well.

H-Types 351 and 352 successfully preserved at St Kilda Tramway Museum.

DIT have officially handed over the two H-Type 'Glenelg' trams that were restored at Glengowrie in the early 2010s to the St Kilda Tramway Museum. They were intended to run on the network as a heritage service and for charter services (and did see a few runs), prior to DIT running out of depot room after purchasing the latest Citadis trams.

H-Type 351 and 352 were both donated after spending a few years stored at the DIT sheds at Walkley Heights.


27/10/21. 352 leaves Walkley Heights. Photo courtesy of AETM President Nic Benn.


27/10/21. 352 arrives at St Kilda. Photo courtesy of AETM President Nic Benn.


26/10/21. 351 is unloaded at St Kilda. Photo courtesy of AETM President Nic Benn.


7/11/21 — H-Types 351 and 352 sit stored in the main shed at the St Kilda Tramway Museum, St Kilda South Australia. 351 arrived on 26/10/21, with 352 arriving the following day on 27/10/21, after a journey from the South Australian Department of Infrastructure and Transport's depot at Walkley Heights.


Both trams are largely in immaculate condition, having been restored under 10 years ago.


A bit dusty and in need of a clean. But a gleaming exterior.


352 could use with a wash. The St Kilda Tramway Museum will hold a members-only cleaning day in the near future.


MTT Logo on the partition door inside 351.


351 interior.


Plaque commemorating the 2012 launch of 351


351 interior.


351 dusty control switches.

You can view a high-res album here: https://imgur.com/gallery/v7TzjMa
And the trams can now be publicly viewed at the St Kilda Tramway Museum, St Kilda

Thanks for posting whatstheirnamesmom

Do you know if the two tone version of the H Class (352) was a special paint job or was this the original colours?