Re: Re: Hobart trams on track
From: Dudley Horscroft
Date:

I would agree with most of your comments, especially re the depot location. A lengthy extension, where you really want to go, could mean cheaper land for a depot and the extra track cost could be balanced by the extra cost of resumption of very expensive land and buildings.

Of course, there is always the alternative of resuming run-down properties, building the tram deport and building housing on top, which can be sold or rented out to bring in money - rather like the land development tramways of the past.

Re curve radius - by all means plan for 18 to 20 m radius curves, but plan for trams that will take a 12 m radius curve - you never know when you will in future need such a radius to get round an awkward corner. Putting 12 m radius in the initial specs means negligible extra cost - trams are already designed for such a radius, and it will probably rule out the multiple two rooms and a bath so beloved of Melbourne.

Regards

Dudley Horscroft
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Prescott
To:TramsDownUnder@...
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:30 PM
Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Re: Hobart trams on track


Thank you Dudley, that clears the duty/GST up. The route goes along a portion of the original Elizabeth St route and Jeremy's markers on the Google map suggest the section is 3 km long. Being a previous tram route one would like to think there aren't many services under it (?).

I'm concerned about the location of a depot. There's no real vacant land there which means the expense (and unpopularity) of resumption. The alternative is to keep heading north until you find open land, which doesn't appear to be before New Town - at least near the route, as you don't want dead running along a branch to the depot.

Re platforms, being a 4 lane street for the most part these would be the driveover type which is basically a glorified speed hump. They can start life at 15 m long and be extended later if necessary. Bus shelter and info panel on the footpath. Nice and inexpensive. In the wider part at the southern end don't fall into the trap of the centre island platform, they should be side islands. Safer and can hold more people who won't clash over opposite trams. You also need these if you want unidirectional operation.

Also the council needs to look seriously at traffic light priority. There are plenty of lights along that route and you don't want another Adelaide disaster. That roundabout to the north is best replaced with traffic lights.. Roundabouts aren't generally safe with trams though they are done - in that case the tracks will go straight through the centre of the roundabout, not round it.

Dudley, I'd recommend a minimum standard of 18-20 metre radius in any case as more in line with modern expectations.

cheers
Tony P

--- InTramsDownUnder@..., "Dudley Horscroft" <transitconsult@...> wrote:
>
> North Hobart only 2 km from the waterfront? Strange I am fairly certain I took a tram to the end of the line - which must have been North of Hobart, and it seems to me the line was about 5 miles = 8 km long.
>
> Apart from that, I think there is a general tariff on imported goods of 5%. This is the last remainder of the appalling 'protective tariffs' that decimated Australian industry.
>
> Thought I might as well look at the Customs site. Go to:
>
> http://www.customs.gov.au/tariff/tariff2012.asp#tariff485
>
> and scroll down to Chapter 86.
>
> This deals with "Railway or tramway locomotives, rolling-stock and parts thereof; railway or tramway track fixtures and fittings and parts thereof; mechanical (including electro-mechanical) traffic signalling equipment of all kinds"
>
> Then you will find under "notes" that the classification is "8603 Self-propelled railway or tramway coaches, vans and trucks, other than those of 8604.00.00". This latter refers to maintenance and service vehicles, etc.
>
> And when you go to the actual tariff listing you will find:
>
> 8603 SELF-PROPELLED RAILWAY OR TRAMWAY COACHES, VANS AND TRUCKS, OTHER THAN THOSE OF 8604.00.00:
>
> 8603.10.00 05 No - Powered from an external source of electricity 5%
>
> 8603.90.00 06 No - Other 5%
>
> And there is no reduced rate for any particular country - doesn't matter where you buy your trams from! So you are stuck with a 5% tariff. But that is chicken feed compared to the 30% or 50% tariffs that persuaded Sydney and the MMTB to not buy PCC cars from the USA. I can see no way that you can get a concession on the Customs Duty.
>
> Have you considered importing them as CKD? If you buy the kit of parts, there may well be reduced shipping charges, and reduced sales price, and hence lower customs duty and GST - offset by the costs of putting them together in Australia (and finding that a part has 'gone missing' - remember Murphy's 15th Law,."If a part is missing, it is the one that is absolutely essential to the construction or the operation or both.")
>
> So you will also presumably have to pay GST, which is 10% on top of the landed price, unless Hobart City Council buys the trams and can manage a zero rating.
>
> Re shipping costs - Adelaide will certainly be able to help, but also think about shopping around, some shipping companies may give you a good price if they think they can write off something against advertising, eg: "Bloggs Shipping delivers New Trams to Hobart" "Reviving Modern Trams on Hobart's Street - Bloggs Shipping does the job".
>
> Re construction - suggest that Christchurch and Auckland may be able to help as low cost construction specialists. See the various people from NZ (here on TDU) who have had up to date inside info on these projects - may be worth while engaging Christchurch Tramways Ltd or "The Corporation of the City of Christchurch" as a 'consultant'. They would certainly do a better job than xxxxx or yyyyy or zzzzz! There is plenty of info re "The Christchurch Tramway Limited" on the companies register, but no details, so far as I can see, which cover whether the Company can act as a consultant or not. Neither does there appear to be any info to say that it is engaged in constructing a tramway and operating trams!
>
> Longer platforms for articulated trams? Not really necessary - you will need sufficient doorways covered by a platform to deal with wheelchairs, shopping trolleys, people with walking machines, and others partially disabled, but able bodied people can easily stop up the 350 mm into a low floor tram - or 150 mm if you get ULF trams from Vienna!
>
> Suggest you estimate what is the sharpest curve you would have to traverse on any of the Hobart bus routes, and decide that the new trams should be able to traverse such a curve without problems. If nothing else, this will make deport construction easier being able to use 12 m radius curves instead of being stuck with 25 m radii.
>
> How long is it since the roads you propose to traverse were last rebuilt? In general, roads are resurfaced at frequent intervals, and rebuilt at rather longer intervals. It could be possible to combine track laying with a road rebuild - perhaps brought forward a few years, and in this case while there may be a pro-rata cost to be added, tracklaying could be viewed as no more than adding reinforcing rods to the centre of the street, and ones which will take heavy traffic (ie, buses) off the general road surface, putting them (as trams) on a specialized portion of the surface, thus saving HCC a bag of money! Try them on this!
>
> And try to ensure that no utilities are shifted, unless it is lying a few inches under the road surface or, for example, it is a manhole which would be crossed by one or other rails.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Dudley Horscroft
>

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links