Sensational-Adelaide.com

This is the same tender. The Hungarian trams were just speculation.

BTW, these Alstom Citadis trams have already been dubbed the Alstom Amigos.

AtD wrote:The Outer Harbor line is looking at a time frame of 2014/15, so that's 6 years away. In the mean time, they'd need to be placed in storage either here or in Europe. They'll be purchased on debt, paying interest and suffering depreciation for six years before they get used. Not a wise use of taxpayers money - there's other things we could buy that can be in use now.

Still, we're assuming there's more than six available. Melbourne already runs these, so surely they'll have their hat in the game along with other cities from across the globe.

Maybe we could buy them, then lease them to Melbourne.

You are quite correct on the issues of storage, interest etc. However, given that the price is about half, and that there are major efficiencies in plant standardisation, and the fact that trams have very long lives leading to reduced issues about depreciation etc, you would think it is something that should not be dismissed out of hand - especially as you say if they could be leased for some of that period.

Oh and we should not forget the propensity of drivers to hate minority vehicles.

However, you are probably on the money about Melbourne wanting to gobble some of them up, so availablility might be the real issue.

I would just be more comfortable if I thought that the SA Govt actually did an NPV on it.

peachy wrote:Funny how the Rann gov rushed the decision of choosing the current less than adequate model of tram, based on the fact it was the only one that could be up and running in time for the last election and now they are fixing their blunder a term later in time for another election. Despite my frustration every time i cram into a chockers tram at rann & co for putting their election prospects ahead of the people they are meant to represent, i do eagerly look forward to the possibility the new trams will be prima and i can move on into a new golden age of Glenelg-City tram travel (and maybe a new gov to boot ).

Those pics just add to the excitement, its just like christmas.

I have read a similar arguement in letters to the editor published in the Advertiser on numerous occassions yet I alwalys fail to understand it. I do not think a city exists in the wolrd where people are not crammed into public transport at peak hour. Why should Adelaide be any different? the trams are not 'chockers' outside of peak hour.

But furthermore I find it paradoxical that you are excited at the prospect of new golden era of tram travel yet at the same time want a Liberal government. Recall that this is the same mob that opposed the 2007 tram extension as well as the current plans for extensions. If it was for them the Adelaide tram netwrok would still be in the 1920s.

AtD wrote:The Outer Harbor line is looking at a time frame of 2014/15, so that's 6 years away. In the mean time, they'd need to be placed in storage either here or in Europe. They'll be purchased on debt, paying interest and suffering depreciation for six years before they get used. Not a wise use of taxpayers money - there's other things we could buy that can be in use now.

That timeframe was based on the needlessly complicated dual voltage operation. If we just stick with DC electrification of the line, the project could be brought forward.

Anyway, what is the status of those Madrid trams? Have they all been built already? If not, when will they be completed?

Will wrote:

peachy wrote:Funny how the Rann gov rushed the decision of choosing the current less than adequate model of tram, based on the fact it was the only one that could be up and running in time for the last election and now they are fixing their blunder a term later in time for another election. Despite my frustration every time i cram into a chockers tram at rann & co for putting their election prospects ahead of the people they are meant to represent, i do eagerly look forward to the possibility the new trams will be prima and i can move on into a new golden age of Glenelg-City tram travel (and maybe a new gov to boot ).

Those pics just add to the excitement, its just like christmas.

I have read a similar arguement in letters to the editor published in the Advertiser on numerous occassions yet I alwalys fail to understand it. I do not think a city exists in the wolrd where people are not crammed into public transport at peak hour. Why should Adelaide be any different? the trams are not 'chockers' outside of peak hour.

Firstly, lots of cities exist where people are not crammed into public transport at peak hour. Secondly, our peak hour capacity is grossly inadequate. The trams would carry more people if those people could fit on - and more still if they didn't have to stand all the way!

But furthermore I find it paradoxical that you are excited at the prospect of new golden era of tram travel yet at the same time want a Liberal government. Recall that this is the same mob that opposed the 2007 tram extension as well as the current plans for extensions. If it was for them the Adelaide tram netwrok would still be in the 1920s.

Bad example - Adelaide had an extensive tram network in the 1920s!

It's not a bad example, as he is pointing out that if the Liberals were in charge(and had we maintained that network), it would not have changed much since the 1920's, and if any changes did occur, they'd most likely be as backwards and ludicrous as the one way expressway the Libs built.
So it is a fitting example.

rev wrote:It's not a bad example, as he is pointing out that if the Liberals were in charge(and had we maintained that network), it would not have changed much since the 1920's, and if any changes did occur, they'd most likely be as backwards and ludicrous as the one way expressway the Libs built.
So it is a fitting example.

No it's not a fitting example - our tram network had enormous backward changes as nearly all of it was dismantled - there were no improvements until the 21st century. Compare that with Melbourne which didn't change as much, but what changes have been made there are generally positive.

Will wrote:

peachy wrote:Funny how the Rann gov rushed the decision of choosing the current less than adequate model of tram, based on the fact it was the only one that could be up and running in time for the last election and now they are fixing their blunder a term later in time for another election. Despite my frustration every time i cram into a chockers tram at rann & co for putting their election prospects ahead of the people they are meant to represent, i do eagerly look forward to the possibility the new trams will be prima and i can move on into a new golden age of Glenelg-City tram travel (and maybe a new gov to boot ).

Those pics just add to the excitement, its just like christmas.

I have read a similar arguement in letters to the editor published in the Advertiser on numerous occassions yet I alwalys fail to understand it. I do not think a city exists in the wolrd where people are not crammed into public transport at peak hour. Why should Adelaide be any different? the trams are not 'chockers' outside of peak hour.

But furthermore I find it paradoxical that you are excited at the prospect of new golden era of tram travel yet at the same time want a Liberal government. Recall that this is the same mob that opposed the 2007 tram extension as well as the current plans for extensions. If it was for them the Adelaide tram netwrok would still be in the 1920s.

Yeah you're right, my off the cuff comment is a bit hypocritical. Although i still say the gov picked the wrong tram for their own election interests but i know thats politics and that kind of thing happens everywhere so its a bit harsh to single them out and as if the opposition wouldn't do the same type of thing.

As for the packed trams, yes everywhere has crammed public transport during peak but to such the extent that the pt repeatedly doesnt stop at the last few stops? im not sure how many places have this occur (it may happen elsewhere i dont know) And in my experience i find interpeak 9am-3pm, maybe 3 out 5 trams i go on have standing room only with a gd number of people crowed around the doors by (or when leaving) the city. I guess im just judging the feeling of space compared to if i caught a bus at the same time where generally there would only be 1-2 bums on every 2 seats and no one standing.

Yes so im in a bind on who to vote for. Im against the Libs kill trams policy but i support their kill selma policy . And my local member is speedy Tommy Kouts so i cant vote for him as i voted for him last time. I might have to hope libs get in just to give labor a kick up the pants so next next election labor can get in and go 'we better actually try this time, lets go tram crazy, trams for everyone! hooray!". Seriously though im probably going to be a swing voter until closer to the election to see the full extent of what is on offer from both.

Oh and for ur 'if it was for them (libs) the Adelaide tram network would still be in the 1920s', wouldn't that be great as didnt we have an awesome tram network in the 20's. i think u meant 'if it wasnt for them'. Whatever the case i think i get ur point.

Back on topic and politics aside, on to the important stuff, yes we should definitely give all new trams cool names like the one suggested. "From Budapest With Love", "Hungarian Rhapsody" and "The Les Murray Flyer" all excellent but now it looks like we are getting ones from Madrid how bout the 'Iberian Bull', 'Puerta del Sol Streetcar', or a 'Tapas Trolly' ( im sure someone else can do better)

I gather the question needs to be asked

Just because it happens elsewhere or in the past does that make it correct?

IMO no it doesn't. The PT system needs to be flexible and provide adequate facilities for the relevant time.

I stopped taking the bus because as previouly mentioned more often than not it just didn't stop (i'm in parkside) so rather than be late I simply drive.

After much searching around the internet by several Railpage members (myself included), member 'scrat' finally found some specifications for the Madrid Citadis fleet. There are a few other items in the tram specification which I think made for an interesting comparison between the Citadis and Flexity.

Model 302 Citadis:
http://www.metrotram.it/index.php?vmcit ... ind=0?=eng

MetroTram wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 32m
Units per tram: 5
Passenger capacity - Seated: 54
Passenger capacity - Crush: 186

Flexity Classic:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transporta ... 0d8000bcec#

Bombardier wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 30m
Units per tram: 3
Passenger capacity - Seated: 64
Passenger capacity - Crush: 115 (4 pass/m²)

Will409 wrote:After much searching around the internet by several Railpage members (myself included), member 'scrat' finally found some specifications for the Madrid Citadis fleet. There are a few other items in the tram specification which I think made for an interesting comparison between the Citadis and Flexity.

Model 302 Citadis:
http://www.metrotram.it/index.php?vmcit ... ind=0?=eng

MetroTram wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 32m
Units per tram: 5
Passenger capacity - Seated: 54
Passenger capacity - Crush: 186

Flexity Classic:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transporta ... 0d8000bcec#

Bombardier wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 30m
Units per tram: 3
Passenger capacity - Seated: 64
Passenger capacity - Crush: 115 (4 pass/m²)

based on those stats, the Madrid trams will fit perfectly. Infact even a slightly longer tram would fit in the platforms. Send em now over please

Less seats, more standing room? I can't decide if that's a good or bad thing. The big problem with our current fleet is there's sod all to hand onto if you are standing, and if people are standing good luck getting to the doors. We haven't developed the Japanese courtesy of getting out to let people off before cramming back in that they have on their metro.

monotonehell wrote:Less seats, more standing room? I can't decide if that's a good or bad thing. The big problem with our current fleet is there's sod all to hand onto if you are standing, and if people are standing good luck getting to the doors. We haven't developed the Japanese courtesy of getting out to let people off before cramming back in that they have on their metro.

Hopefully the door crowds will be less of a problem with the 5 huge doors on each side the Madrid 302s have.

I think a crush load of 186 is a bit of a conservative number.

monotonehell wrote:Less seats, more standing room? I can't decide if that's a good or bad thing.

More trams should allow headways to be reduced, so the total number of seats will increase. Therefore it's a good thing.

Will409 wrote:After much searching around the internet by several Railpage members (myself included), member 'scrat' finally found some specifications for the Madrid Citadis fleet. There are a few other items in the tram specification which I think made for an interesting comparison between the Citadis and Flexity.

Model 302 Citadis:
http://www.metrotram.it/index.php?vmcit ... ind=0?=eng

MetroTram wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 32m
Units per tram: 5
Passenger capacity - Seated: 54
Passenger capacity - Crush: 186

Flexity Classic:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transporta ... 0d8000bcec#

Bombardier wrote: Width: 2.4m
Length: 30m
Units per tram: 3
Passenger capacity - Seated: 64
Passenger capacity - Crush: 115 (4 pass/m²)

Out of curiosity, what is the crush capacity of a two car poxbox train?

Some more photos of the work. As diskiller pointed out on Railpage, it does look as if work is really starting to ramp up now. North Terrace, North Terrace/West Terrace/Port Road intersection and Port Road bridge were all hives of activity today.

Earthworks on North Terrace with a tanker truck between duties.



And where the above photos were taken from just incase anyone thought they looked a little sus.


Grader at work on the northern side of North Terrace.


Partly completed earthworks on North Terrace as taken from North Terrace/West Terrace/Port Road intersection. This photo was taken from a pedestrian diversion path incase anyone was wondering.


More earth work in the middle of the intersection itself.



Traffic signage and work being undertaken near Port Road bridge.




Some more work being undertaken at Port Road/James Cogdon Drive intersection.