Inner West Light Rail observations

[gilberations]

The IWLR is the L1 Dulwich Hill line. You are discussing the Parramatta line.

The conversation had drifted

[Jurassic_Joke]

Those four new trams they’ve announced for the L1 Dulwich Hill Line can’t come quickly enough. Hope there’s some kind of early Christmas and we get them before 2023.

Friday, PM Peak, from Star City to Central it was absolutely jam packed overcrowded, almost all seats taken (including those with no sit-here sticker), barely any standing room to move in, it really felt like pre-COVID days almost. Sunday arvo was pretty much the same, next time I’ll just pay up and get the Ferry from Pyrmont. Covid or not, an 8 minute frequency in the peak hour isn’t really something of the L1’s time anymore - and that’s the maximum when you only have 12 trams for service, minus the ones sitting in maintaince.

I don’t know why they sat on their hands for so long to order new trams for this line, but I’m glad they finally moved on it. Hopefully the new trams give a lot more breathing room to bump up frequency both in the peak hours and weekends

[tonyp]

They're still constrained by the single-track terminus at Dulwich Hill. Even the much better-run GCLR doesn't manage better than seven minutes with a single track at one end. Even if it ran with the discipline of Mussolini's trains, it couldn't sustain better than 4 or 5 minutes.

[jpp42]

Has there been any talk about fixing the terminus? I know that Dulwich Hill railway station is getting a makeover including new overhead concourse during the Metro rebuild - have they made sure there is provision for a double-track light rail terminus as part of that?

[boronia]

Any "fixing" of the tram terminus can be done independently of station works. The presence of the two track goods line keeps them permanently apart.

[Jurassic_Joke]

I remember back in March, there were several trams of the CAF fleet that were completely free of opaque adwrap - 2112, 2114, 2115 and 2116 to name a few. Today, not a single tram on the L1 is free of ads. Money talks, I guess.

At least there’s still a lot of Citadis on the other two lines free of ads

[rogf24]

Eyeballs also talk

[Jurassic_Joke]

So the other night, not too long after the end of service on L1, I had a pretty big amount of luck in, all by chance, getting to actually come by a Citadis traversing the L1 while out on a walk. It was sitting at Paddys Market, was a coupled set and all, and getting to see this tram on this line is quite the sight, although unfortunately couldn’t snap a pic, dead phone.

However what I do wish to report is, having now seen it with my own eyes is, why the Citadis can’t run passenger service on the L1. If the different wheel/rail profile wasn’t enough, then the door height is probably the deal breaker issue. The platform at Paddys Market didn’t align correctly in height with the doors of the Citadis - theres a very visible gap in difference in which the Citadis trams, in easy words, are too high, too tall, for the L1 platforms, in which any service that would run on the line would definitely be wheelchair inaccessible, and for the other passengers boarding or alighting, you might catch them off guard with that big step up/down between the tram and the platform.

It’s sad to see, but I don’t see this being rectified very easily, if at all. Because what about the height for the CAFs then? It’s a pretty noticeable gap that sticks out like a sore thumb. I think the best you could hope for here is getting yet to be announced news that Alstom wins the tender for the four extra growth trams for the L1, and then you get L1 spec’d Citadis for the line that would then most certainly become exclusive to the line. Although my gut tells me CAF is probably on track to win this tender, it would be nice to go back to the days of 2014/2015 of having mixed fleet for variety on the line.

[tonyp]

So is there a horizontal gap as well as a vertical gap?

[Jurassic_Joke]

EDIT - sorry I mixed them up. The vertical gap between platform and doors is much more prominent than the horizontal gap

[tonyp]

Yup. Big horizontal gap that’s more prominent than the vertical gap

I think the extension order will be CAFs then. L1 is designed for CAFs, L2 and 3 for Citadis. That's part of TfNSW's early bungling.

[Jurassic_Joke]

I don’t really see why they can’t order a Citadis that’s built to the L1’s specs , I mean the SMH article said they made the shortlist. ie, the hybrid wheels and the appropriate width and height and then the same door configuration. I’m pretty sure for L2/L3 originally at the start they wanted CAF Urbos, in the 7 module configuration, but for reasons I don’t know, they switched to Alstom at some point.

But I definitely agree with you I think they’re more likely tk go with CAF for this small order, they’ve probably learnt their lesson a la Variotram for having orphan fleets

[tonyp]

The reason Alstom is with CSELR is that they were a member of the winning consortium for that project. The CAFs on IWLR were ordered directly by TfNSW back in 2011 with an option to add further trams to the order later. TfNSW could buy another model for IWLR but I'd say is unlikely to. Both lines could use trams with proper swivelling bogies.

[matthewg]

The CAF trams have gap filler plates at the doors, as per European practice they are narrower at the floor level. The Variotrams had straight sides, so the base model CAF would have had a too-large a gap too if it wasn't for the step treads at the doors.
The Varios did not have automatic levelling suspension and as the wheels wore down plates were inserted into the suspension springs to compensate.

At this point, it would be way better to harmonise the platform standards between the two lines and have commonly interchangeable rollingstock. The two interconnected lines will almost certainly be always operated as a single contract and having separate fleets just makes rollingstock management a pain. The best I think for the 12 CAF cars would send them back to CAF to be remanufactured to current production standards and use them on the Paramatta or Newcastle lines.

[Glen]

I can't imagine the Parramatta line being opened with second hand cars!

[Jurassic_Joke]

On the subject of traffic light removals, they seem to have also removed the traffic lights between Paddys Markets and Capitol Square, namely those crossing from Sussex St to Thomas St, I think I saw an orange barricade.

I say good job, would take a ridiculous amount of time to move from Paddys Markets to Capitol Square, you’d have to wait at not one but two traffic lights.

[boronia]

But pedestrian lights in this area still seem to operate as if there was vehicular traffic. Why does there need to be DONT WALK signs across the tram lines when there are no trams approaching? Little wonder that people ignore them.

[Swift]

Exposes the inflexibility of our bureaucracy.

[marcnut1996]

On the subject of traffic light removals, they seem to have also removed the traffic lights between Paddys Markets and Capitol Square, namely those crossing from Sussex St to Thomas St, I think I saw an orange barricade.

I say good job, would take a ridiculous amount of time to move from Paddys Markets to Capitol Square, you’d have to wait at not one but two traffic lights.

Thomas Street was closed to Sussex and Hay Streets permanently, allowing the removal of the lights. A poster on the Citymark (683 George St) carpark entrance says this was implemented on 15 February.

Also see: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newsl ... 8e0d4c51e3

The decision was only endorsed by Council's traffic committee recently in November and endorsed by the Councillors in December.
Traffic Commitee: https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.a ... px?Id=2495 - Link to drawings at bottom of the page.
Council meeting: https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.a ... il.pdf?T=1

[Jurassic_Joke]

Couple of things,

Advertising wrap has been removed from several trams - at least 2114, 2116 and 2123 are completely free from advertising wrap, for now, enjoy an unobstructed view out the windows on these trams. It seems to be made up for however with the L2 and L3’s Citadis fleet, in recent weeks they’ve really jacked up the number of trams that carry billboards on the windows.

It has now been a whole year since overnight services on the L1, the short workings between Central and The Star that ran 7 days a week, have been suspended “due to COVID19”. The suspension of the overnight services, used to have its own section on the ‘disruptions’ page on the Transport NSW website - this is no longer there. Exact same on NextThere - used to be an “alert” detailing L1 overnight services suspended until further notice - also not there anymore. It’s all been very quietly swept under the rug.

Even walking past Capitol Square stop late tonight, the indicator boards weren’t even mentioning L1 overnight services being suspended anymore, but rather instead talked about L2 and L3 not running in the CBD due to planned track work.

[Linto63]

Not surprisingly the 4 extra trams to be acquired will be CAF Urbos. TFNSW awards CAF the supply of a further 4 Urbos 100 LRV units for Sydney

[tonyp]

Couple of things,

Advertising wrap has been removed from several trams - at least 2114, 2116 and 2123 are completely free from advertising wrap, for now, enjoy an unobstructed view out the windows on these trams. It seems to be made up for however with the L2 and L3’s Citadis fleet, in recent weeks they’ve really jacked up the number of trams that carry billboards on the windows.

The assault on the travel experience by AOA was brought home to me the other day when I rode both tram and bus in Canberra, all vehicles that I rode bar one bus being wrapped. Canberra is a beautifully scenic city with great mountain and lake views and the wrap completely ruined these. No opportunity for photography either unless you like heavily pixelated photos. It's the ultimate expression of contempt for your customers. Regularly I see photos of European trams and buses with AOA where the windows are left clear, so it's not like there should be no AOA, it a question of how it's done. It's clear which systems "place customers first" and which don't.

[Swift]

Yet another reason for my disgust at the way things are run here.
We plainly don't have the balance right between ad revenue and the user experience.

[boronia]

Couple of things,

Advertising wrap has been removed from several trams - at least 2114, 2116 and 2123 are completely free from advertising wrap, for now, enjoy an unobstructed view out the windows on these trams. It seems to be made up for however with the L2 and L3’s Citadis fleet, in recent weeks they’ve really jacked up the number of trams that carry billboards on the windows.

With the L1 being largely off road and out of public view, The L2/3 would be giving clients a much better exposure for their advertising dollar, even if the rates were higher.

[Swift]

Even the much lauded Gold Coast Light Rail had fallen into the wrap trap.
It's only the weather that makes it better here than Europe, and we hardly have to work hard for that!