Sensational-Adelaide.com

Edgar wrote:And how can the government stuffed our new tram system? It hasn't been better off since it started operations, and the extension was just as good, if not, better than the old route. To say they stuffed it is a cheap childish typical opposition comments, from someone who cannot afford to come out with anything better if they were in the positions.

If I may point out a few areas which could of been better managed.

What fool anticipates a growth in patronage but does not increase capacity. The trams can not be coupled and each carrys less then the existing trams. Frequencys can not be increased because they did not build grade seperations. They are building an overpass over south road probably with more distruptions then if they had done it when the whole line was being upgraded. They also tryed to cut short the resleeping of the tracks. This lead to derailments and futer cost in fixing the tracks. They rushed the purchase of the trams to be ready by the next election possiably leading to us paying much more then we could have. If I can remember they cost almost 6m each. Much more then melbourne pays.

Im a big fan of the trams but valid points.

sorry to argue with you again The-Q915, but i think 1 flexity can carry a similar number of people as 2 H's, its just that there are more people standing on the flexity. I'll have to properly check, but the flexity is quite a long tram compared to the average tram around the world. And most of the derailments occured at the old points leading just out of Glengowrie, which were replaced at the time of resleepering. It was some of the straight sections of track that werent replaced at the time. Dont know why it wasnt done all at once, but they were deemed safe to travel on, just a bit bumpy, thats all. Grade separations would be excellent, but they're pretty expensive
However a few 4 section long trams would be good.

Some comparisons to lay this arguement to rest. Up for comparison is an H, a Flexi and a Melbourne D1 (3 section) and D2 (5 section). I have to appolgise about the quality of the H class drawing but it does date from 1952.

H class


Adelaide Flexity Classic (also known as the I class)


Melbourne D1 (3 section) and D2 (5 section)
http://www.siemens.com.au/transportatio ... _Trams.pdf

Go to page 2 for diagrams.

So the H class was 64/170 and the Flexity is 64/115? Or were crush loads estimated more sardine-like back in the 1950s?

I'd like to see 170 people in a H class...

AtD wrote:I'd like to see 170 people in a H class...

I wouldn't.

Although even when only partly full the Flexitys feel cramped and the seats are awfully uncomfortable.

crikeys, 170 crush load in 1 H. That would be funny to see. Was it based on a crush load of 4 year old skinny runts
Now from my calculations, our 3 section flexity is longer than the 5-section siemens thingo in Melb.
I wonder why there are so many flexy points in the new Melb trams, is it to get around sharp corners easier?

I think there are more joints in the 5 section Combino (our as some railfans there have called them, Bambinos) because of the stupid truck arrangement which is no better then trams from 1900. Basically, the 4 wheels under each section are rigidly fixed to the body. You can imagine what sort of issues you would have if the tram body was longer then it currently is. There are also a few curves on the Melbourne system that are sharper then the one on North Terrace, the sharpest of which are a very tight 18m radius.

Here is a photo of the stupid axleless truck fitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Comb ... hassis.jpg

Not to mention their uglyness

monotonehell wrote:

AtD wrote:I'd like to see 170 people in a H class...

I wouldn't.

Although even when only partly full the Flexitys feel cramped and the seats are awfully uncomfortable.

I really don't understand why those seats are as awful as they are. New buses that I've travelled in have quite thick padding on the seats and are very comfortable; in fact, the little fold-down seats in the wheelchair sections of the tram have much better padding than the main seating areas, so I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind such hard park-benches.

The_Q915 wrote:If I may point out a few areas which could of been better managed.

What fool anticipates a growth in patronage but does not increase capacity. The trams can not be coupled and each carrys less then the existing trams. Frequencys can not be increased because they did not build grade seperations. They are building an overpass over south road probably with more distruptions then if they had done it when the whole line was being upgraded. They also tryed to cut short the resleeping of the tracks. This lead to derailments and futer cost in fixing the tracks. They rushed the purchase of the trams to be ready by the next election possiably leading to us paying much more then we could have. If I can remember they cost almost 6m each. Much more then melbourne pays.

You haven't been playing with Wikipedia recently, have you?

Omicron wrote:

monotonehell wrote:

AtD wrote:I'd like to see 170 people in a H class...

I wouldn't.

Although even when only partly full the Flexitys feel cramped and the seats are awfully uncomfortable.

I really don't understand why those seats are as awful as they are. New buses that I've travelled in have quite thick padding on the seats and are very comfortable; in fact, the little fold-down seats in the wheelchair sections of the tram have much better padding than the main seating areas, so I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind such hard park-benches.

The seats are rock hard to prevent seat slashing.

Will409 wrote:The seats are rock hard to prevent seat slashing.

That'd be right, vandals making things uncomfortable for everyone else. One problem with public property is you have to factor in vandalism. So annoying.

Has anyone noticed the new glass screens and what I think may be timetable boards/possible advertising going up going up at the tramstops yesterday/today? Could look fairly decent. It looks like they may be electronic screens but I can't be sure.