Inner West Light Rail observations

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion
Glen
Posts: 3365
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by Glen »

As the late Roger Graham used to say, Woolworths would never let us paint our bus company name on their shop, so why do we let them paint their name on our vehicles?
Jurassic_Joke
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:08 pm

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by Jurassic_Joke »

Linto63 wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 12:09 pm 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
…. Well, thats that. Was secretly hoping Alstom would come along and say “what about, what if, we’ll give you an extra special deal, we’ll give you 4 new Citadis for IWLR AND sell you 12 new Citadis on top at a special rate to replace the existing CAF trams in lieu of us maintaining them” (…sound familiar???), but always knew that was probably a minuscule chance and TfNSW probably wouldn’t fall for that one again after the Variotram saga!

lets see what we get, and how the Urbos has been updated in the meantime and what differences they’ll have with the current Urbos. One thing I actually like about our Urbos is the drivers cab is entirely translucent glass almost from end to end, enabling you to see clearly out ahead if you sit near the front of the tram - more recent Urbos, Newcastles as an example, does away with some of the glass and as such reduces the view into the cab.

As for seating, don’t forget our existing CAFs come in two different seating layouts, the one that features more transverse seating, found in original six trams (identical to Canberra spec) or the later six trams that swap several transverse seats for longitudinal ones. I hope we get the original spec featuring more transverse seating. Longitudinal seating absolutely sucks, but thats just my opinion, I prefer the privacy and window view that transverse seats offer. I predict, seating layout could go either way here.

As for doors, considering the platforms at the stops are clearly marked where wheelchairs go, I unfortunately doubt that TfNSW will be bothered to specify the new trams to have a more suitable door layout, ie, whats on CSELR with 6 double leaf doors per tram, but will instead just cut and paste the existing CAF door spec which is a pity, because it leads to inefficient outcomes for boarding and alighting, and was already based on copying an outdated specification (Variotram, when IWLR was just a tourist service). I really don’t see them changing anything with the doors, maybe if we’re lucky at most as a surprise the front doors could be double leaf instead of single leaf.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by tonyp »

These additional CAFs are purchased under exercise of an option on the original order. It was never going to go out to open tender. Alstom was only the tram supplier under the construction contract for CSELR. Transdev is the operator and maintainer of all Sydney trams and, to them, it doesn't matter who manufactures the trams, they have to maintain and operate whatever TfNSW gives them. This is something like a 30 year contract iirc, so nothing is going to change any time soon.

You are right in saying that TfNSW simply adopted the general Variotram format in specifying the CAFs, a tram designed for tourist service rather than mass transit. One of the factors behind this was that they seriously under-estimated how patronage on IWLR would explode when brought into the Opal system. They thought the line would continue to potter along as a low-patronage backwater oddity. (They also stuffed the Dulwich Hill terminus with a single track as a result of the same thinking.) This scepticism is a common feature of new light rail projects around the world that were strenuously resisted in the lead-up by the "buses can do everything" mob. Adelaide was another new system that initially suffered the scepticism malaise, resulting in under-provision of line and vehicle capacity. More generally, the doors thing in NSW is common to all modes, buses and trains (metro excepted) because it's taking TfNSW a long time to understand the significance of passenger exchange and dwells (assisted by their buddies in the union).

The choice between CAF and Citadis is a choice of the "least worst". They're both poor engineering designs with their fixed trucks. The CAF rides better than the Citadis, but loses seats because of poor power bogie design. It's a six of one, half dozen of the other choice. Rather like TfNSW's bus selection "capabilities".
STMPainter2018
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:38 pm

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by STMPainter2018 »

Jurassic_Joke wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:11 am
…. Well, thats that. Was secretly hoping Alstom would come along and say “what about, what if, we’ll give you an extra special deal, we’ll give you 4 new Citadis for IWLR AND sell you 12 new Citadis on top at a special rate to replace the existing CAF trams in lieu of us maintaining them” (…sound familiar???), but always knew that was probably a minuscule chance and TfNSW probably wouldn’t fall for that one again after the Variotram saga!

lets see what we get, and how the Urbos has been updated in the meantime and what differences they’ll have with the current Urbos. One thing I actually like about our Urbos is the drivers cab is entirely translucent glass almost from end to end, enabling you to see clearly out ahead if you sit near the front of the tram - more recent Urbos, Newcastles as an example, does away with some of the glass and as such reduces the view into the cab.

As for seating, don’t forget our existing CAFs come in two different seating layouts, the one that features more transverse seating, found in original six trams (identical to Canberra spec) or the later six trams that swap several transverse seats for longitudinal ones. I hope we get the original spec featuring more transverse seating. Longitudinal seating absolutely sucks, but thats just my opinion, I prefer the privacy and window view that transverse seats offer. I predict, seating layout could go either way here.

As for doors, considering the platforms at the stops are clearly marked where wheelchairs go, I unfortunately doubt that TfNSW will be bothered to specify the new trams to have a more suitable door layout, ie, whats on CSELR with 6 double leaf doors per tram, but will instead just cut and paste the existing CAF door spec which is a pity, because it leads to inefficient outcomes for boarding and alighting, and was already based on copying an outdated specification (Variotram, when IWLR was just a tourist service). I really don’t see them changing anything with the doors, maybe if we’re lucky at most as a surprise the front doors could be double leaf instead of single leaf.
I am all but certain the four new trams will be built to the same specs as the existing 12, meaning same seating layout, same door layout and same ride quality. Basically the new cars will be no better than the 2014 Urbos trams, even though CAF have improved in the time since. You ask any Canberra gunzel and they'll tell you their Urbos 3's ride better than Sydney's as it was a latter build. I would expect the Parramatta Urbos trams to be even better; for one thing they'll be 7 modules long, have the same door layout as a Citadis X05 and probably ride better given that it's not restricted by previous specifications. If the new trams end up being latest model and build as the Parramatta fleet, things might be alright but I have my doubts. It really would've been better that ALSTOM got the contract and provided new Citadis trams and eventually phase out the CAF fleet. It's much easier from a maintenance POV to have a common fleet, and it was would've given incentive to the need to fully modify the L1 to L2/L2 standards and specifications; so that spare Citadis units from Randwick could've provided extra passenger services; maybe short workings between CQ and Pyrmont? It also gives Inner West commuters a better ride as the layout of the tram is FAR superior and I don't care what TonyP says; the ALSTOM Citadis X05 are a VASTLY superior vehicle to the CAF Urbos 3's; they ride WAY better than what he makes out and they're a much smoother ride fixed bogies be damned! But no; once again TfNSW have chosen ideology over common sense and let the market decide these things, leaving the operators out in the dust who would probably want consistency they can't currently have. And commuters are left all the more poorer for it, especially inner west commuters who deserve better services than what they currently have, operated by better vehicles that what they currently have. The light rail network in Sydney needs to be standardised to allow for greater flexibility from an operational and maintenance standpoint but it seems with this announcement, the status quo will remain for quite some time yet and that shits me.
User avatar
Swift
Posts: 13247
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:23 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by Swift »

The current mob are Greiner lite and until Labor get back to their roots and discard their woke politics crap, expect more mediocrity in the foreseeable future from either party.
Here's hoping Labor being a woeful alternative for so long will lead to a resurgence Neville Wran started post Whitlam disaster.
NSW, the state that embraces mediocrity.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by tonyp »

I was in Canberra just recently and the CAF trams are basically identical to the IWLR ones. They don't ride any better (the ride is already quite good on all of them), the difference is that the Canberra line is a virtual straight line throughout, unlike IWLR with its constant curves. Both the CAF and Citadis are poor performers on curves (because they're not the type of tram designed for curves), but the Citadis is clearly the worse performer of the two in that regard. Bear in mind too that the kinematic envelope of the Citadis is unsuitable for passenger operation on IWLR thanks to TfNSW not requiring the same design standards for both lines and letting Alstom set the parameters for CSELR. In particular, the platform clearances on IWLR are not compatible with the Citadis, thus wouldn't be DDA compliant (likewise if they wanted to use CAFs on CSELR).

Both trams would be particularly poor on the Parramatta line (Carlingford section excepted), regardless of length, because of all those turns and corners. Fortunately, there are no expectations of a fast journey on that section, so it should be passable. With its haphazard road layout with many curves and corners, Sydney is a city that requires trams with proper swivelling bogies, something that the previous system had worked out by 1900. A great shame that tramway engineers couldn't live for 200 years so that they can pass the message on, but there are live engineers in Europe, even Melbourne, who could have told them the same thing but TfNSW chose not to consult them, preferring the advice of hucksters.

Lack of fleet standardisation doesn't seem to worry TfNSW or operators with buses. However, with trams the situation was determined by the lines being under separate contracts. Alstom was part of the winning consortium on CSELR and CAF provides trams under an ongoing contract that was agreed about 2012 or so, using a standard design that TfNSW eliminated two doors from (not CAF's fault). Nothing much you can do about that until either contract is terminated. My one point of agreement is that CAF made a dog's breakfast of the seating over the power bogies.
moa999
Posts: 2923
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:12 pm

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by moa999 »

Personally dont see standardisation as an issue.

So long as you have enough of every type (say 10 of each with 1 on maintenance, 1 on reserve) it works..
I mean London and NY railways work with trains of different widths on different lines.

It's not like Ansett and their Noah's Ark strategy
Jurassic_Joke
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:08 pm

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by Jurassic_Joke »

STMPainter2018 wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 2:36 pm I am all but certain the four new trams will be built to the same specs as the existing 12, meaning same seating layout, same door layout and same ride quality. Basically the new cars will be no better than the 2014 Urbos trams, even though CAF have improved in the time since. You ask any Canberra gunzel and they'll tell you their Urbos 3's ride better than Sydney's as it was a latter build. I would expect the Parramatta Urbos trams to be even better; for one thing they'll be 7 modules long, have the same door layout as a Citadis X05 and probably ride better given that it's not restricted by previous specifications. If the new trams end up being latest model and build as the Parramatta fleet, things might be alright but I have my doubts. It really would've been better that ALSTOM got the contract and provided new Citadis trams and eventually phase out the CAF fleet. It's much easier from a maintenance POV to have a common fleet, and it was would've given incentive to the need to fully modify the L1 to L2/L2 standards and specifications; so that spare Citadis units from Randwick could've provided extra passenger services; maybe short workings between CQ and Pyrmont? It also gives Inner West commuters a better ride as the layout of the tram is FAR superior and I don't care what TonyP says; the ALSTOM Citadis X05 are a VASTLY superior vehicle to the CAF Urbos 3's; they ride WAY better than what he makes out and they're a much smoother ride fixed bogies be damned! But no; once again TfNSW have chosen ideology over common sense and let the market decide these things, leaving the operators out in the dust who would probably want consistency they can't currently have. And commuters are left all the more poorer for it, especially inner west commuters who deserve better services than what they currently have, operated by better vehicles that what they currently have. The light rail network in Sydney needs to be standardised to allow for greater flexibility from an operational and maintenance standpoint but it seems with this announcement, the status quo will remain for quite some time yet and that shits me.
Hmmmm, politely disagree with the suggestion the new CAFs will be the exact same as the 2014 ones - while yes visually, doors and seating will likely indeed be the same, I’m pretty sure the new CAFs that are coming for IWLR will be the latest build one. Like, what Canberra has. ‘Old’ build models for trains and tram aren’t produced anymore - its also why for example, for Sydney Trains, for ordering new trains under the same contract, we have B sets rather than A sets because times have changed and moved forward since then. Likewise, in Canberras CAFs, I still see some subtle design improvements not present in our CAFs (think lighting and interior display technology), and also a subtle difference in engine sound, I’d say you can expect to see these changes in the new trams.

Well in relation to extra passenger services on IWLR, until early 2018, they very much did have an easy option in theory - reinstate the Variotrams that were just sitting helplessly in that yard at Penrith awaiting their impending doom. They could’ve even cannibalised two trams for heaps of spare parts, leaving four remaining, give them their refurbishment they need, reinstate those four and voila you’d have your four extra trams immediately there that could’ve then gone on for some time. If I remember correctly, Variotram 2106 was already cannibalised for parts about a year or two before the rest of the fleet was withdrawn.

But TfNSW wouldn’t listen, and instead we now have to wait until early 2023 for the extra CAFs to arrive plus commissioning and testing after that however long that’ll take. Not to mention the fortune we probably paid for them - SMH reported its understood the total cost of the four trams came to $40 million. $10 million each. How much did the original CAFs cost again? I think I remember Gladys’ spin doctors parroting something much smaller per tram.

It’s almost a lucky unintended side effect of Covid slowing down the surging patronage rates on IWLR, I remember what it was like 2018 and 2019, it was just really not sustainable. I reckon the only positive of the new CAFs having a relatively long lead time to delivery is TfNSW now has plenty of time to organise how to duplicate the Dulwich Hill terminus to help accommodate the higher frequencies that will come with the extra trams. Maybe do it alongside a longer-term Bankstown line Metro shutdown to mitigate the disruption impact.
tonyp wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:19 pm
Lack of fleet standardisation doesn't seem to worry TfNSW or operators with buses. However, with trams the situation was determined by the lines being under separate contracts. Alstom was part of the winning consortium on CSELR and CAF provides trams under an ongoing contract that was agreed about 2012 or so, using a standard design that TfNSW eliminated two doors from (not CAF's fault). Nothing much you can do about that until either contract is terminated. My one point of agreement is that CAF made a dog's breakfast of the seating over the power bogies.
Yeah but surely, in relation to contract and not being able to change anything, there is actually a big difference between the first batch of IWLR CAFs (2112-2118) and the second Variotram-replacing batch (2119-2124) - that is, seating. Batch 1 has more transverse seating that was clearly designed, along with the doors, to copy the Variotram, and in turn, Canberra copied this CAF spec, and I hope they go with this for the four new trams coming up. Batch 2 kills the transverse seats in the second and fourth modules and replaces it with feet-in-aisle longitudinal seating.

Clearly, in the time between ordering the first and second batch, TfNSW realised they goofed up somehow and/or panicked about something, irrespective, they were able to change the seating layout for the second order of CAFs. To something vastly worse, I’ll add - I don’t like the second batch of CAFs. The first batch at least has plenty of transverse seating to show for it, but the second one, ugh, just, no, its awful. Does the number of doors on the tram affect its cost? If yes, I assume, the seating layout doesn’t have any bearings on cost? Because surely they should’ve worked out by now the current door layout doesn’t work. No one likes the slow slog that it is to get off a packed tram at Central terminus stop in peak hour because of the lack of doors.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by tonyp »

Jurassic_Joke wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 1:53 am SMH reported its understood the total cost of the four trams came to $40 million. $10 million each. How much did the original CAFs cost again? I think I remember Gladys’ spin doctors parroting something much smaller per tram.
The spiel that TfNSW gave out at the time was that they were $2 million each, but one of my industry contacts in Europe found out that they cost $4 million, which was on par with what such a tram cost at the time. They wouldn't be $10 million now unless TfNSW was taken to the cleaners. That sort of figure usually means inclusion of a maintenance contract for xx years, but even that sounds far-fetched.
Jurassic_Joke wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 1:53 am Yeah but surely, in relation to contract and not being able to change anything, there is actually a big difference between the first batch of IWLR CAFs (2112-2118) and the second Variotram-replacing batch (2119-2124) - that is, seating. Batch 1 has more transverse seating that was clearly designed, along with the doors, to copy the Variotram, and in turn, Canberra copied this CAF spec, and I hope they go with this for the four new trams coming up. Batch 2 kills the transverse seats in the second and fourth modules and replaces it with feet-in-aisle longitudinal seating.

Clearly, in the time between ordering the first and second batch, TfNSW realised they goofed up somehow and/or panicked about something, irrespective, they were able to change the seating layout for the second order of CAFs. To something vastly worse, I’ll add - I don’t like the second batch of CAFs. The first batch at least has plenty of transverse seating to show for it, but the second one, ugh, just, no, its awful. Does the number of doors on the tram affect its cost? If yes, I assume, the seating layout doesn’t have any bearings on cost? Because surely they should’ve worked out by now the current door layout doesn’t work. No one likes the slow slog that it is to get off a packed tram at Central terminus stop in peak hour because of the lack of doors.
Changing seating from transverse to longitudinal is a trivial variation in a standing contract. TfNSW has done it because of the greater than expected demand and longitudinal seating helps accommodate more standees without losing too much seating. This particular longitudinal seating is against the bulkheads so "feet in aisle" isn't an issue. The problematic longitudinal seats in the CAF are the ones on the power bogies at the ends which are a complete design cock-up. This one should have been rectified long ago if CAF didn't have so many uncritical clients. Nobody in most public transport management nowadays seems to actually use public transport themselves, so they don't see the practical issues. This sort of thing used to be taught/passed-down knowledge. No longer. I remember one of the conductors they used to have on IWLR saying to me quietly that they were sick of tripping over passengers' feet when passing those bogie seats but when they raised it with management they were told to say only nice things about the trams.

Doors are an area in which much Australian public transport has moved from world-leading to among the world's worst. Efficient passenger exchange used to be the holy grail, but my feeling is it got sacrificed to the obsession with seating-maximisation. However, we've now returned to the stage that we're moving such numbers of people that seating maximisation is an unattainable goal and we must move back to processing passenger movements much more efficiently - both on and off vehicles and within them. This reality is taking a long long time to sink in. They've got it right on the Sydney metro, Melbourne trains and the Perth C series and the CSELR consortium got it right with the Alstoms (thank goodness it was for them to decide, not TfNSW).

When I was young in Sydney, we were still entering and exiting through all doors on both trams and buses (including our local private buses), as was the practice since the early beginnings of both modes. Since then, it has degenerated to trams with too-few doors and buses with front door only entrance and some private operators who won't even let you out through the back door, let along in! Even when some Australian operations have now finally moved back to the sensible practice of all-door loading on buses, they often still don't know how to specify the vehicles properly, e.g. my recent experience in Canberra where the centre door on their new buses is not only single leaf but has stairs as well [facepalm]! So there's this long dwell where you wait for a single file of people to slowly tag off and exit before a single file of people can slowly enter and tag on. The specific reason you have all door loading is to minimise dwell time and even out the passenger load. Then they sabotage that with the design of the vehicle. It's just completely f-cked thinking. Anyway, I digress.
Linto63
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:44 pm

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by Linto63 »

Glen wrote: As the late Roger Graham used to say, Woolworths would never let us paint our bus company name on their shop, so why do we let them paint their name on our vehicles?
Fairly simple, Woolworths pays the bus operator for the privilege, something unlikely to happen the other way around.
tonyp wrote: These additional CAFs are purchased under exercise of an option on the original order.
The 2012 contact was for 6 with an option for a further 6 that was taken up in full in 2014, so there was no option left to exercise unless something was incorporated into the Parramatta order.
STMPainter2018 wrote: I am all but certain the four new trams will be built to the same specs as the existing 12, meaning same seating layout, same door layout and same ride quality.
They will be basically the same as existing fleet, apart from whatever upgrades CAF have made to the design since 2014.
Jurassic_Joke wrote: Well in relation to extra passenger services on IWLR, until early 2018, they very much did have an easy option in theory - reinstate the Variotrams that were just sitting helplessly in that yard at Penrith awaiting their impending doom.
Had it been decided to refurbish rather than replace the Variotrams, then the second order of 6 wouldn't have been placed, so the capacity issue would have remained.
tonyp wrote: Anyway, I digress.
You said it. :roll:
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21567
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by boronia »

Linto63 wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:14 pm
Glen wrote: As the late Roger Graham used to say, Woolworths would never let us paint our bus company name on their shop, so why do we let them paint their name on our vehicles?
Fairly simple, Woolworths pays the bus operator for the privilege, something unlikely to happen the other way around.
Maybe not bus operators, but food suppliers pay handsomely to get off-shelf promotion of their products.
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
Linto63
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:44 pm

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by Linto63 »

Fairly sure Westbus, where Mr Graham was the general manager, used to operate buses in AOA liveries.
User avatar
Swift
Posts: 13247
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:23 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by Swift »

I always liked old school spray painted AOA and didn't mind the odd bit of graphic partially covering a window or two each side using that two way see through stuff adopted from America in the 1990s , but now they just go all out with it and even do it with a livery like the STA 333 bendy buses. It's grotesque in many levels discussed before.
NSW, the state that embraces mediocrity.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by tonyp »

Many operators allow AOA but at the same time respect their own customers,

Image

rather like the way it used to be done.

Image

What has happened otherwise is casting aside any semblance of respect for their customers and allowing their vehicles to be turned completely into mobile billboards.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21567
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by boronia »

TfNSW has sent out an alert that L1 services will be replaced by buses on Monday 24th October for essential maintenance.

Never mind that 24th appears to be a Sunday.
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
Swift
Posts: 13247
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:23 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by Swift »

Will the buses drive on some ROW such as Hay St?
NSW, the state that embraces mediocrity.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21567
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by boronia »

I got photos a few years back of buses using the colonnade and Hay St, but now they go from the western forecourt and some convoluted route to get to Darling Harbour.
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
pgt
Posts: 1219
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:05 pm
Favourite Vehicle: MAN SL202/MB O305G/Volvo B10M
Contact:

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by pgt »

Swift wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:09 am Will the buses drive on some ROW such as Hay St?
If what they do for bus replacements is the same as previous times, the buses omit particular stops and no they don't drive on the ROW (eg. Hay St) - I seem to recall Capitol Square is one stop that is not serviced by the replacement buses (passengers are directed to use Central instead).
"It's my way or the (side of the) highway".
Might be a way to lead life, but more like the way that some people drive.
Geo101
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:55 am

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by Geo101 »

pgt wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:40 pm
Swift wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:09 am Will the buses drive on some ROW such as Hay St?
If what they do for bus replacements is the same as previous times, the buses omit particular stops and no they don't drive on the ROW (eg. Hay St) - I seem to recall Capitol Square is one stop that is not serviced by the replacement buses (passengers are directed to use Central instead).
Wouldn't the bus replacement routes be designed around NOT driving on the tram route, especially as it would in many instances be due to shutdown work/activities occupying the route?
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by tonyp »

There were photos on this forum a few years ago of replacement buses driving along the Hay St tramway. There's nothing to stop buses driving along any tramway in pavement. They do it overseas all the time. Open ballast or grass is obviously another matter.

Though open ballast didn't deter my great aunt Nell from taking shortcuts in Melbourne in her prewar Ford.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21567
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by boronia »

Back in 2013. There were problems getting buses around the corner off the Eddy Ave bridge because the tracks are elevated relative to the roadway.
Back in 2013. There were problems getting buses around the corner off the Eddy Ave bridge because the tracks are elevated relative to the roadway.
iw51b 001 (Small).jpeg (144.32 KiB) Viewed 1077 times
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
Swift
Posts: 13247
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:23 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by Swift »

How did they work with the tram specific traffic signals?
NSW, the state that embraces mediocrity.
User avatar
jpp42
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:27 pm

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by jpp42 »

https://transportnsw.info/alerts/details#/6065620
From 6am Thursday 28 October to 11pm Sunday 31 October, buses will replace L1 Dulwich Hill Line light rail services between Central Grand Concourse and Dulwich Hill, due to operational issues.
The line was also closed partially on Sunday 24th Oct (I think between John St. Square and Central, but might have been more).

Anyone know more details?

Edit: spotted a Murray's intercity coach on replacement duties ...
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21567
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by boronia »

https://transportnsw.info/news/2021/l1- ... -closure-0

I'm sure the 24/10 closure was advertised as the full line.

At least one of Murrays' coaches was noted doing route work for TSA a couple of weeks back.
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21567
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Inner West Light Rail observations

Post by boronia »

Inner West light rail services suspended after cracks discovered in trams

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/inn ... 5944d.html
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Sydney / NSW”