News & Discussion: Trams

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
Listy
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4336 Post by Listy » Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:14 pm

rubberman wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 1:15 pm
Listy wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 10:41 am
A 26 tonne load limit to be imposed on the King William Rd bridge, with significant repairs needed within the next decade. I guess this makes a tramline into North Adelaide contingent on the bridge being repaired first.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-04/ ... d/11476978
This was fine up to the point where it said that the new trams are heavier than the old trams. Not so. A coupled set of H trams has almost exactly the same axle load as the Flexities and the Citadis.

When this was discussed here previously, I pointed out that either the bridge upgrade was unnecessary because tram axle loads were no greater now than in the 1950s OR if the bridge had degraded to the point where it couldn't take trams, then what about other users such as trucks or buses?

It seems as if the whole bridge needs an upgrade.

The good news is that in that case, the cost can be shared between trams and other road users. It's far cheaper to do the bridge in one project, rather than do just tram lines, then the road lanes. Plus, less traffic disruption by doing it once.
Yes, I thought that comment about tram weight wasn't right. The council does seem intent on trying to get fed/state assistance for the necessary work (whatever that actually is), but it's concerning that they think it could take 5-15 years to get that assistance.

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 145 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4337 Post by Nort » Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:31 pm

How many people on the tram do those load numbers assume? Seems like you can cram more into modern trams.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4338 Post by Waewick » Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:20 pm

Listy wrote:A 26 tonne load limit to be imposed on the King William Rd bridge, with significant repairs needed within the next decade. I guess this makes a tramline into North Adelaide contingent on the bridge being repaired first.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-04/ ... d/11476978
Tram or no tram fix the bridge. Although banning trucks over 26 tonnes isnt a bad thing.

I would hope State Liberals, or even Federal Libs wouldn'tbe so petty as not to fund it in case they used it for trams in the future.










rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4339 Post by rubberman » Wed Sep 04, 2019 11:08 pm

Nort wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:31 pm
How many people on the tram do those load numbers assume? Seems like you can cram more into modern trams.
An H class tram had a crush load of 170 persons. A coupled set had obviously 340 as a maximum. Coupled sets used to run across the bridge.

A Citadis has a capacity of 186.

Now, that's not mentioning the H1 car which had a crush load of 184 persons.

When you consider it, this should not be surprising. Many legacy systems in Europe as well as Australia arrived at this size/capacity/weight combination over the years through a lot of trial and error. If trams were too light, they wore out or couldn't carry the load. Too heavy, and they needed more power and expensive track. So, most systems actually were running cars of similar size, even if not identical. Now, fast forward to the year 2000 and onwards, any tram manufacturers would have to produce vehicles structurally compatible with existing systems or not be able to sell their vehicles. (The fact that geometric differences, such as widths are different cause enough problems, imagine the grief if there were major structural issues as well).

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1173
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 371 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4340 Post by SBD » Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:18 am

Waewick wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:20 pm
Listy wrote:A 26 tonne load limit to be imposed on the King William Rd bridge, with significant repairs needed within the next decade. I guess this makes a tramline into North Adelaide contingent on the bridge being repaired first.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-04/ ... d/11476978
Tram or no tram fix the bridge. Although banning trucks over 26 tonnes isnt a bad thing.

I would hope State Liberals, or even Federal Libs wouldn'tbe so petty as not to fund it in case they used it for trams in the future.
What route(s) do concrete trucks typically use to access the northern parts of the CBD and southern parts of North Adelaide? 26 tonnes seems to permit "standard" 3-axle concrete trucks, but preclude the 4-, 5- and 6-axle versions from using that bridge. Is that likely to increase costs, delays or traffic issues around construction sites?

Listy
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4341 Post by Listy » Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:18 am

SBD wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:18 am
Waewick wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:20 pm
Listy wrote:A 26 tonne load limit to be imposed on the King William Rd bridge, with significant repairs needed within the next decade. I guess this makes a tramline into North Adelaide contingent on the bridge being repaired first.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-04/ ... d/11476978
Tram or no tram fix the bridge. Although banning trucks over 26 tonnes isnt a bad thing.

I would hope State Liberals, or even Federal Libs wouldn'tbe so petty as not to fund it in case they used it for trams in the future.
What route(s) do concrete trucks typically use to access the northern parts of the CBD and southern parts of North Adelaide? 26 tonnes seems to permit "standard" 3-axle concrete trucks, but preclude the 4-, 5- and 6-axle versions from using that bridge. Is that likely to increase costs, delays or traffic issues around construction sites?
The article mentioned the Festival Centre redevelopment specifically - one scenario that might have caused an issue is trucks full of landfill were exiting the worksite by making a left onto KWR and heading through North Adelaide for Main North Rd, & now they will probably have to use North Tce to get to the Park Tce ring route if they are heading the same way. I don't doubt the bridge is in need of repair, but it is curious that this decision helps to reduce truck traffic through North Adelaide! It will be interesting in the future to see if certain council members decide to oppose the repair of the bridge ...

SBD
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1173
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview
Has thanked: 371 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4342 Post by SBD » Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:07 pm

Listy wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:18 am
SBD wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:18 am
Waewick wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:20 pm
Tram or no tram fix the bridge. Although banning trucks over 26 tonnes isnt a bad thing.

I would hope State Liberals, or even Federal Libs wouldn'tbe so petty as not to fund it in case they used it for trams in the future.
What route(s) do concrete trucks typically use to access the northern parts of the CBD and southern parts of North Adelaide? 26 tonnes seems to permit "standard" 3-axle concrete trucks, but preclude the 4-, 5- and 6-axle versions from using that bridge. Is that likely to increase costs, delays or traffic issues around construction sites?
The article mentioned the Festival Centre redevelopment specifically - one scenario that might have caused an issue is trucks full of landfill were exiting the worksite by making a left onto KWR and heading through North Adelaide for Main North Rd, & now they will probably have to use North Tce to get to the Park Tce ring route if they are heading the same way. I don't doubt the bridge is in need of repair, but it is curious that this decision helps to reduce truck traffic through North Adelaide! It will be interesting in the future to see if certain council members decide to oppose the repair of the bridge ...
That probably creates employment too. I imagine it would be at least three traffic controllers to support right turns on to king William road with no traffic lights, and maybe a 25km/h zone as well. I expect a lot of concrete will be required for construction, but don't know where it comes from.

Spotto
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4343 Post by Spotto » Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:45 pm

Geez with all this new development in North Adelaide, a tram up O'Connell just makes sense. Getting it done before all these places-to-go open up will make the sites more appealing to develop and to travel to.

The Adelaide Oval Hotel and long-awaited development on the old LeCornu North Adelaide site, the Crows HQ moving to the North Adelaide parklands. The Women's and Children's is also being upgraded and won't be moved any time soon regardless of whether a government has their heart set on the move

We knew that the Libs weren't going to send trams beyond the parklands, but now they've also abandoned their CBD trams election promise (North Adelaide + City Loop)... Whoops!

ml69
Legendary Member!
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:16 pm
Location: Adelaide SA
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4344 Post by ml69 » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:02 pm

Spotto wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:45 pm
We knew that the Libs weren't going to send trams beyond the parklands, but now they've also abandoned their CBD trams election promise (North Adelaide + City Loop)... Whoops!
What?? When was this confirmed, or is it your speculation?

Spotto
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4345 Post by Spotto » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:00 pm

ml69 wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:02 pm
Spotto wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:45 pm
We knew that the Libs weren't going to send trams beyond the parklands, but now they've also abandoned their CBD trams election promise (North Adelaide + City Loop)... Whoops!
What?? When was this confirmed, or is it your speculation?
The North Adelaide and City Loop trams were part of their election plan, as seen in their "People Focused Public Transport" brochure. That part is confirmed.
https://strongplan.com.au/wp-content/up ... NSPORT.pdf

As for abandoning said tram plan, Stephan Knoll has himself said that buses take priority over trams, and amidst all their other announcements for public transport expansion there's been zero mention of the trams not even in a "we're interested in looking into it". Their old announcements said that SAPTA might look into it, but SAPTA is nowhere in sight and putting 2 and 2 together, quietly letting it slide is better publicity than saying outright "we're not doing this". If they were serious about tram extensions, they'd be doing the studies now and roll them into SAPTA when it eventually surfaces.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2019
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4346 Post by claybro » Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:55 pm

Have to say I'm really becoming disillusioned with this state government as far as transport is concerned. I like the idea of the bus to rail hubs, but this seems more of a cost cutting exercise than any attempt to upgrade and modernise overall operations and facilities. I also get the "vibe" even from over here that SA is starting to loose some momentum in general, with the only projects ongoing are ones started by the previous government.

adelaide transport
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4347 Post by adelaide transport » Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:35 pm

SAPTA is already up and running with PT staff transferred from DPTI,plus its own CEO(Tony Braxton-Smith who also is head of DPTI).
It also has its own board.

ml69
Legendary Member!
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:16 pm
Location: Adelaide SA
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4348 Post by ml69 » Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:03 am

Spotto wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:00 pm
ml69 wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:02 pm
Spotto wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:45 pm
We knew that the Libs weren't going to send trams beyond the parklands, but now they've also abandoned their CBD trams election promise (North Adelaide + City Loop)... Whoops!
What?? When was this confirmed, or is it your speculation?
The North Adelaide and City Loop trams were part of their election plan, as seen in their "People Focused Public Transport" brochure. That part is confirmed.
https://strongplan.com.au/wp-content/up ... NSPORT.pdf

As for abandoning said tram plan, Stephan Knoll has himself said that buses take priority over trams, and amidst all their other announcements for public transport expansion there's been zero mention of the trams not even in a "we're interested in looking into it". Their old announcements said that SAPTA might look into it, but SAPTA is nowhere in sight and putting 2 and 2 together, quietly letting it slide is better publicity than saying outright "we're not doing this". If they were serious about tram extensions, they'd be doing the studies now and roll them into SAPTA when it eventually surfaces.
So it’s your speculation.

The last I heard from the government is that they are abandoning the suburban tram extensions, but “open” to CBD extensions. But that’s a pretty vague statement and doesn’t commit them to anything. I suspect there will be no CBD loop or North Adelaide extension unless we win the Comm Games and get some federal money to pay for it. Or the North Adelaide extension may be a Labor and/or Liberal pitch at the 2022 state election.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2019
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4349 Post by claybro » Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:38 pm

Tram extensions should not depend on Commonwealth games to attract funding. IA have repeatedly said they will look at funding for light rail if the state can come up with a workable plan. Apart from some vague wishy washy concepts from the former government, no one has presented a plan including specific urban renewal plans that would fund and necessitate a light rail network. This lot certainly aren't going to persue such an agenda, Games or not.

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

#4350 Post by Goodsy » Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:45 pm

claybro wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:38 pm
Tram extensions should not depend on Commonwealth games to attract funding. IA have repeatedly said they will look at funding for light rail if the state can come up with a workable plan. Apart from some vague wishy washy concepts from the former government, no one has presented a plan including specific urban renewal plans that would fund and necessitate a light rail network. This lot certainly aren't going to persue such an agenda, Games or not.
The AdeLINK MCA report was far from wishy washy

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests