No, the solution is, as Tony P has suggested earlier, is to lay in a loop and shift the platform back to the straight section. I
have checked this using Google Maps and it is just possible to get in a 25m radius loop IIRC (it may have been an 18m radius -
forget now). 25m or 18m are easy to use for modern trams.

This loop just clears all the buildings on site, though IIRC it would help if it were to cut into the rail reserve - there should be
no problem doing this for a few yards.

Regards

Dudley Horscroft
----- Original Message -----
From: "prescottt@ymail.com [TramsDownUnder]" TramsDownUnder@...>
To: TramsDownUnder@...>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Re: IWLR stuff - ads, delays and special work.

> [To Ted} what I meant is that there was a platform built that was available for a future second track at the previous termini.

> Even if the line wasn't extended, that extra platform could have been brought into use as an additional terminus road if traffic

> increased greatly. It's the identical approach as used on Gold Coast.

>

> Thanks Tony, I remember the constraints at Dulwich Hill but there were solutions that I remember were (unwisely in retrospect)

> left to the consulant boffins to sort out. Definitely the best solution is a single platform with a track either side. That could

> have been squeezed in and also would have been the most convenient for passengers. Shaving a bit off that railway building (which

> could have been compensated by an addition to its western end) would have been vastly preferable to creating an operational

> nightmare for themselves. For want of doing something readily solvable at the time they left a legacy of a severe operational

> problem and an iron constraint on the capacity of the line.

>

>

> As for that new substation, how stupid to locate it out on the alignment like that - another obstacle to rectifying the problem.

> In the future I can see services being short-worked to Dulwich Grove for a long time while they demolish and replace Dulwich Hill

> station and substation and lay new tracks and crossovers. Or else, when the line runs out of capacity they will push the overflow

> onto buses to assist it. As they will be pre-emptively on CSELR. Nothing like having a clean sheet to design a brand new tramway

> and then having to use buses to help it later because it wasn't designed well enough (journey time on CSELR rather than track

> capacity).

>

>

> Tony P

> ---InTramsDownUnder@..., <arg@...> wrote :

>

>

> On 25 Mar 2017, at 5:42 pm, prescottt@... mailto:prescottt@... [TramsDownUnder] TramsDownUnder@...

> mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com>; wrote:

>

>

> There was provision for two tracks at the original Lilyfield terminus so somebody must have had a clue then, but the operation was

> so quiet it wasn't mostly needed. The stroke of "genius" c ame about in design of the extension to Dulwich Hill. I don't know who

> the culprit is, whether TfNSW or a consultant.

>

>

>

>

> The original Wentworth Park terminus had a single track stub on the up track alignment, that was repeated when it was extended to

> Lilyfield, and they did the same again at Dulwich Hill.

>

> The “culprit” at the Dulwich Hill terminus was the brief to build the terminus as close to Dulwich Hill station as possible. The

> original idea was to cut back the cliff face below Bedford Cres, the street above the tram terminus, to make room for two tracks,

> but that would have limited car parking, and the residents in the street objected to it as well. The option of having a double

> track terminus around near where the substation is located, near the points for the stub, was rejected as being too far from the

> station. Both the substation and terminus platform impinge on space for a second track where the old Wardell Rd Jct Down East Fork

> was in railway times.

>

>

> The only way to get a double track terminus in there now would be demolish the existing platform and have a pair of stubs with a

> platform between them at the current location, retaining the current single track past the substation before splitting into the

> pair of stub tracks. Even then space would be at a premium and a sliver of the Jack Shanahan Reserve would have to be resumed to

> make room for it.

>

>

> Tony G

>

>

>

>