PRO: Port Adelaide Tramline | $260m

[PhilH]

A Q & A in yesterday's Tiser (it's unclear whether they were direct quotes from Kevin Foley, or someone else) indicated that the tram-trains would all be low floor, requiring modification to the stops on the Outer Harbor line (and presumably the Grange line too), and that they will NOT run into Adelaide station because the platforms are too high, although there was also a statement that they could run on all the electrified lines. I see a couple of problems with those statements:

Not being able to run into Adelaide station from other lines would negate a large part of their usefulness;
If they are going to run on all the electrified lines, wouldn't ALL stations then require modification?

Anyway, no decisions have been made yet as to the train or tram-train models - they are being put out for worldwide tender, with the trains due for delivery in 2012 and the tram-trains in mid-2013.

[Norman]

You can have stops that feature both platform heights. They had this back in Stuttgart during the time they converted from the lower-floor trams to higher floor light rail vehicles. So it is possible, and not much of a hassle.

The fact that the Train-Tram can't run into Adelaide Station is fine, it stops right outside the Railway Station on the tram extension line anyway.

[Aidan]

Aiden, you do have to remember that EMUs are lighter in over all weight then DMUs. DMUs have to carry around all the engines/fuel tanks/radiators and other anciallary equipment under the floor. This does add a reasonable amount of weight (probably about 3/4 tonnes in the case of the 3000/3100s). Remove those and overhaul the traction motors and you should see converted railcars with a better level of acceleration to the 4000 class EMUs that are to be ordered. I will conceed the fact that they may not be quite as fast as new stock but you do have to remember that the poxboxes are between 12-21 years old now.

Yes, removing all those will save mass, but you won't save all that much, because extra components have to be added. As well as the pantograph and transformer, there's extra electrical equipment needed.

ATP is already used on the heavy rail system keeping trains apart. Running trams on the heavy rail line wouldn't be an issue since the ATP system would just consider it another rail vehicle on the system and the various CTC screens in Train Control next to the Adelaide rail yards would have the hybrid show up on the control panels.{/quote]

ATP is not used to keep trains apart - normal signals do the job, and permissive signals are used on much of the network! Something more would be needed to ensure no train ever collides with a tram.

I don't really see your argument about the tram/trains because the line was going to be electrified regardless (in addition to the entire heavy rail system).

If light rail can do the job, a lot of money could be saved by electrifying at 750V DC and avoiding the need for dual voltage trams.

As for the ARTC line, I don't think ARTC would even bother. The reason is that you may eliminate the diamond crossover at Torrens Junction but instead you would shift it over to the Adelaide end of Torrens River bridge. The ARTC line would crossover the TA line to continue onto Melbourne via the Gaol Loop - Mile End. No point shifting a current problem a few hundred metres away if it is still going to happen.

The point is that the trams could save valuable time if they didn't have to stick to Port Road's detour round Bonython Park, and it would probably also reduce traffic congestion. As for ARTC, they will bother if the state government tells them to bother. It goes without saying that they wouldn't bother otherwise, but that's not the point. If it benefits the state then it doesn't have to benefit ARTC in order for it to get done.

[Ho Really]

A link between the Outer Harbor line at Bowden and Port Road at the Entertainment Centre is the closest practical point to the CBD where a transfer can be made. As I pointed out already, try to take the tram route any further down the line and you will have a dual mode TransAdelaide tram/railway interface with the ARTC interstate network at Torrens Junction. In addition, to create a link with the current City West - Glenelg line in the CBD if you followed the heavy rail line in it's entirety, you would need a flyover in Adelaide Station yard which I have already pointed out as being unfeasable due to various construction works as well as a couple of other issues.

The answer is to access it via Gaol Road, as suggested in the Port Adelaide Enfield council report. This would involve moving the ARTC line to between the Port and Gawler lines. Torrens Junction would have to be replaced with one S of the Torrens.

It might be better to abandon the idea of hybrid operation on that line. TramTrains are a good idea when you want to take advantage of existing electrified railways, but needlessly expensive if the line hasn't been electrified yet. Running via Port Road would waste lots of time for no significant advantage - Thebarton station would put Thebarton on the map just as effectively if it were on Gaol Road than if it were on Port Road, and the EnterCenter is only two minutes walk from Bowden Station (one minute to walk to Port Road, another minute to cross at the crossing)...

Will, I thank you for all the other explanations, but this is why I asked the question regarding the extension to the Entertainment Centre. I don’t really see the need for it. I would rather see the tram line on North Terrace loop back into the city. If they want to connect the two systems they could probably do it as Aidan explained (via Gaol Road or around that area) as the rest of the line down Port Road to Bowden doesn’t really serve any extra purpose. They could also join the two systems at Goodwood. If the state government needs to acquire land down there then they should do it asap. In future who knows they could join up in many other places where the current rail system has accessible corridors from main roads (Mile End, Keswick...). I think the government should look at saving money where it can and not duplicate if possible.

In another post somewhere Norman mentioned AUFC’s proposed new stadium at Thebarton (Adelaide Police Barracks). If they build it there then the tram as suggested by Aidan will probably circumvent it.

Cheers

[cleverick]

So, I've been mulling this over for a couple of days now, and I've got a few thoughts:
Firstly, praise to the government for electrification.
Secondly, boo-ya! for connecting the tram and train lines. In London, I caught a heavy rail line from the airport, then a light rail through the near suburbs and finally a subway as we closed in on Kings Cross. All without actually getting out of the train.
Thirdly, while I can easliy see how high-floored trains can connect to low-level platforms, how do you do it the other way around? Nonetheless, I leave this in the capable hands of experts, because it's not even my main beef.

Fourth, why the hell aren't they building (As the Mayor of PA/E would prefer) a tram down Port Road? As I have argued before, trains and trams are adapted for completely different purposes, and even though we're blurring the distinction, I can see the trainy-ness of the trams causing over-crowding like on the present Glenelg line, while the tramy-ness of the trains may prevent them opperating as efficiently as they perhaps could.

The Mayor's propsal is to use the median strip, but I would oppose this almost as much as I oppose the proposed route along the OH line. Whether you use a right-of-way (with right turns?) as in the north of the City, or a simple dual-use lane, as Jetty Rd, is irrelevant to me, though I prefer the former. These trams are not to augment present flows of people to and from the City, but to replace thousands of petrol-guzzling, CO2-emitting cars. To use the median strip would be a mockery of the environmental credentials of rail.
Nonetheless, the way the plan looks to me, you may as well just offer better buses to Semaphore. To offer something truly new, the government ought to build the tram down Port Rd- doubling the rail services to the area, but also providing a unique and different service which would result in an immediate and splendid transformation of Port Rd. Once across the river (somehow, for smarter traffic engineers than I to determine) the tram could snake between Military Rd and the Esplanade, going along first Semaphore Rd, then Jetty Rd, Strathmore Tce and finally Osborne Rd. I believe heavy development in apartments and so forth will create the necessary density, and the area would be brilliant for residents and visitors alike. And think of the view from the wide, clean windows!

Others may have noted my comments about Grenfell St becoming Adelaide's Champs Elysees- I take it back. Miles and miles of wide road with huge foot paths, public transport, and a park in the middle? We may as well call it the Port Boulevard.

[mm42]

Once both the electric trains and tram-trains start operating between Bowden and Woodville, how will the number of services fit into a double-track line ? If there a service every 15 minutes to
- Outer Harbour
- Grange
- Semaphore (tram-train)
- AAMI stadium
this means a service every 4 minutes in each direction between Bowden and Woodville. Boom gates on the level crossings would close every 2 minutes. Won't the road users complain, like they do on the Glenelg tramline, and Transadelaide be limited to one boomgate closure every 5 minutes ? Some of these services would be express, some stopping all stations, so a 4-minutes frequency would be even more difficult. How would tram-trains fit into such narrow time slots, because they would be under road traffic control (traffic lights) prior to joining the rail line ? At Woodville and Bowden, there doesn't seem to be grade separation to reduce conflicting movements.

With only 15 duel-voltage tram-trains, holding perhaps 180 people each, this means a maximum capacity to AAMI Stadium of 2700 passengers, or 5% of the capacity of the stadium. Should more trams be converted to duel-voltage ?

[cleverick]

Thank you, mm42, for yet more reasons the dual system should be scrapped and a tramline down the middle of Port Rd built instead. I am all for inter-connectivity, but that's so that you only need one set of spare parts, easier substitution between lines, and so that you can configure the routes however best serves the transport needs of the day- both in terms of yearly time table changes and also special services such as direct links from Glenelg to AAMI, or similar.

[how_good_is_he]

For the $2 Billion, couldn't we have got an overhead or underground solution?

[AtD]

For the $2 Billion, couldn't we have got an overhead or underground solution?

No, not by a long shot.

[Aidan]

Will, I thank you for all the other explanations, but this is why I asked the question regarding the extension to the Entertainment Centre. I don’t really see the need for it. I would rather see the tram line on North Terrace loop back into the city.

Why? It already serves the City quite well, and there's no good route for looping back (as Gray Street is too narrow for two way operation, and West Terrace is too busy).

If they want to connect the two systems they could probably do it as Aidan explained (via Gaol Road or around that area) as the rest of the line down Port Road to Bowden doesn’t really serve any extra purpose. They could also join the two systems at Goodwood.

Joining up with the Noarlunga line would be a bad idea, but taking over the Belair Line from Goodwood is a possibility I will be investigating further.

If the state government needs to acquire land down there then they should do it asap. In future who knows they could join up in many other places where the current rail system has accessible corridors from main roads (Mile End, Keswick...). I think the government should look at saving money where it can and not duplicate if possible.

Having many low capacity branches with a sparse service is not the way to improve Adelaide's transport!

In another post somewhere Norman mentioned AUFC’s proposed new stadium at Thebarton (Adelaide Police Barracks). If they build it there then the tram as suggested by Aidan will probably circumvent it.

Circumvent is really the wrong word. It would serve it very well. But the stadium proposal's already been rejected once, so is there still much enthusiasm for it?

[Aidan]

So, I've been mulling this over for a couple of days now, and I've got a few thoughts:
Firstly, praise to the government for electrification.
Secondly, boo-ya! for connecting the tram and train lines. In London, I caught a heavy rail line from the airport, then a light rail through the near suburbs and finally a subway as we closed in on Kings Cross. All without actually getting out of the train.
Thirdly, while I can easliy see how high-floored trains can connect to low-level platforms, how do you do it the other way around? Nonetheless, I leave this in the capable hands of experts, because it's not even my main beef.

Fourth, why the hell aren't they building (As the Mayor of PA/E would prefer) a tram down Port Road? As I have argued before, trains and trams are adapted for completely different purposes, and even though we're blurring the distinction, I can see the trainy-ness of the trams causing over-crowding like on the present Glenelg line, while the tramy-ness of the trains may prevent them opperating as efficiently as they perhaps could.

Having been to London, you should know that trainyness and trammyness don't have to prevent anything. I don't know which airport you caught the train from, but if it was Gatwick it was heavy rail all the way, if it was Heathrow it was Underground all the way (despite being mostly above ground) and if it was City Airport than it was light rail all the way (despite being high floor and completely grade separated). Elsewhere in London, low floor light rail has taken over from heavy rail, and in doing so has improved the service enormously. There are some lines where speed and capacity preclude trams, but so far I'm unconvinced the Outer Harbour line is one of them.

Building a tramway all the way down Port Road would be a tremendous waste of money - it would mean that IN ADDITION TO the cost of electrifying one railway, there would be the expense of building another one less than a kilometre away, but which would scarcely do anything the buses wouldn't!

The Mayor's propsal is to use the median strip, but I would oppose this almost as much as I oppose the proposed route along the OH line. Whether you use a right-of-way (with right turns?) as in the north of the City, or a simple dual-use lane, as Jetty Rd, is irrelevant to me, though I prefer the former. These trams are not to augment present flows of people to and from the City, but to replace thousands of petrol-guzzling, CO2-emitting cars. To use the median strip would be a mockery of the environmental credentials of rail.

Actually they are partly to agument present flows. If they replace thousands of cars, so much the better, but unless you start from an already busy base, it is difficult to do so at a reasonable cost.

Nonetheless, the way the plan looks to me, you may as well just offer better buses to Semaphore. To offer something truly new, the government ought to build the tram down Port Rd- doubling the rail services to the area, but also providing a unique and different service which would result in an immediate and splendid transformation of Port Rd. Once across the river (somehow, for smarter traffic engineers than I to determine) the tram could snake between Military Rd and the Esplanade, going along first Semaphore Rd, then Jetty Rd, Strathmore Tce and finally Osborne Rd. I believe heavy development in apartments and so forth will create the necessary density, and the area would be brilliant for residents and visitors alike. And think of the view from the wide, clean windows!

Running along the Esplanade would mean that there's only development on one side, effectively halving the density! And beyond Taperoo, the existing railway is within walking distance of nearly everywhere anyway.

Others may have noted my comments about Grenfell St becoming Adelaide's Champs Elysees- I take it back. Miles and miles of wide road with huge foot paths, public transport, and a park in the middle? We may as well call it the Port Boulevard.

Having driven down three very different "Boulevards" (Ocean Boulevard, Young Street Boulevard, Mawson Lakes Boulevard) I can confidently predict such a name change would be meaningless!

[Aidan]

Once both the electric trains and tram-trains start operating between Bowden and Woodville, how will the number of services fit into a double-track line ? If there a service every 15 minutes to
- Outer Harbour
- Grange
- Semaphore (tram-train)
- AAMI stadium
this means a service every 4 minutes in each direction between Bowden and Woodville. Boom gates on the level crossings would close every 2 minutes. Won't the road users complain, like they do on the Glenelg tramline, and Transadelaide be limited to one boomgate closure every 5 minutes ?

Some of the time the trains would pass the boomgates in both directions at once, so the gates wouldn't need to come down quite that often. But even if they do, there's going to be an underpass on South Road, so only the Woodville level crossing would have many vehicles cross it. And it's only South Road that's currently restricting TransAdelaide to one boomgate closure every 5 minutes, and even that's mainly because they're not complaining loudly enough!

Some of these services would be express, some stopping all stations, so a 4-minutes frequency would be even more difficult. How would tram-trains fit into such narrow time slots, because they would be under road traffic control (traffic lights) prior to joining the rail line ? At Woodville and Bowden, there doesn't seem to be grade separation to reduce conflicting movements.

With only 15 duel-voltage tram-trains, holding perhaps 180 people each, this means a maximum capacity to AAMI Stadium of 2700 passengers, or 5% of the capacity of the stadium. Should more trams be converted to duel-voltage ?

Good point - that's another reason why normal trams would be better though the required capacity would probably require a two minute frequency or longer platforms... and possibly both!

[how_good_is_he]

I expect the the bus interchange at Aami to become the tram interchange and its route down the middle of the Boulevard to the stadium to become the route for the tram. Thoughts? What about the likley Port Adelaide/Semaphore route.

[AtD]

I expect the the bus interchange at Aami to become the tram interchange and its route down the middle of the Boulevard to the stadium to become the route for the tram. Thoughts? What about the likley Port Adelaide/Semaphore route.

It would be better to use the West Lakes Mall interchange, it's used every day and not just game days.

[cleverick]

Aiden, I make the distinction between heavy, light and sub rails largely on empirical observation of track type. Heavy rail is characterised by its own right of way, distant stops and relatively infrequent services. Light rail is typically along city streets (so the Glenelg line is actually already a tram-train hybrid) with more frequent stops and frequent services. Subways are below ground, with very high frequencies and moderate distances between stops.
By my own definition, I should remove "light rail" from my description of the route from Heathrow to Kings Cross, but you get the point.
I am all for interconnectivity: I was able to catch a train (heavy) from Budapest to Karlsruhe without once having to change. How is it the EU (hell, even countries like Hungary) can have a standardised guage and we can't? Don't try telling me they have better terrain for it!

I agree, then, that trainyness and tramyness don't have to preclude anything: but frequency is the solution, and to get that we need fewer level crossings so that the boom gates don't have to come down. Or we need to overhaul our thinking on public transport and decided that even if they are coming down every 2 minutes, it's worth it to encourage people to use PT instead of drive.

I agree that the proposal to build a tram down Port Rd would cost a lot of money. However, in a world of increasing petrol prices, of a shift away from cars, of economies of scale in owning and operating a rail system, in a world where the community is demanding more and better PT options, I don't at all agree that the money would be wasted.
For people going into town, there is the OH train, for people going up the road to Hungry's, or meeting friends at Semaphore, or running some errands, there is the tram. The tram is a cleaner, more comfortable, more pleasant trip. And in a world where we accept we must start using public transport more, a rich city such as Adelaide has the right to demand relatively expensive and better public transport options. This is all part of the complete re-think we need to do in terms of how public transport works. I see it in future being the main means by which people move about, rather than an inconvenient augmentation to road traffic used only by people who can't afford a car. Thus it must be close, frequent and fast- everywhere. If we cannot afford to build public transport somewhere, we cannot afford to have people living there. The urban boundary and all sort of issues are bound up in this. The world is changing.
As for doing things the bus couldn't: what do trams offer that buses don't anyway? Why do we build any trams at all? The city was (allegedly) perfectly well served with a CityFree, and yet they built a tram to duplicate it.
I concede: trams are partly to augment present flows. But only partially. With the price of petrol going through the roof, car registration up some hideous percentage, and foot votes using public transport more and more regularly, any increase in public transport provision is largely, if not entirely, in some suburbs, to replace cars which are no longer viable commuting options.

Returning the the Port Boulevard tram line, and I agree, building on the Esplanade you would halve the density. But the views would encourage day-trippers, tourists, and with enough cafes and shops, would perhaps be enough to justify it anyway. As for the distances between it and the heavy rail- the reason I discount this 'problem' is detailed above. There will come a point when even that route is at maximum capacity, and then, just like the ever-widening South Road, you will have to purchase land, expand stations, duplicate the track... Or you could build an alternative route to take up some of the slack, sort of like Marion and Port Rush Roads.

As for the Port Boulevard: it would *be* a boulevard, not just named one. Think of the boulevards in Paris: one lane each way, road-side parking, wide poot paths and an enourmous park, perhaps four lanes wide, in the middle. Or Amsterdam's streets: one lane each way, on-street parking and a canal in the middle. Perhaps it is time we revisited the Port Canal idea. I would prefer a wetlands/linear park, though. In any case, the name change would be a result not of a desire to increase property values, but of an actual change in the nature of the street.