A couple of points. I first saw those "half sleepers" being used in Warsaw in 2008. So, they've been around for a while. 
Similarly in that trip they had some sections using the rail in slot method as well. So, the Poles were looking at different methods in a big way. 
As far as the issue of single truckers is concerned,  in my misspent youth I skulked in the basement of a couple of libraries which had back copies of the Street Railway Journal etc. In the 1900-1910 period, there were many articles discussingthis subject. Basically,  the observations were that single truckers wore out track,  as you have observed too. In addition, they caused open ballast track and sleeper constructed street track to deform with small dips initially. Those dips would then cause the single truckers to bounce even more, exacerbating the dips, causing more bouncing etc etc. The end point being much slower operating speeds for single truckers. 
In Adelaide, the Citadis are noticeably rougher at speed. So, they actually rarely go flat out in the open ballast sections. This means the whole time table is based on a fairly dozy speed for ALL vehicles. That is, it seems that the whole operation goes at the safe speed of the slowest vehicles...the Citadis. Tail wagging dog.
As an observation, single truckers were avoided wherever possible for these reasons. That is, until institutional memory was lost, and the wheel currently being reinvented. 

Sent on the go with Vodafone

-------- Original message --------
From: "Bramleybrammers@... [TramsDownUnder]" TramsDownUnder@...>
Date: 8/10/2017 1:09 AM (GMT+09:30)
To: Yahoogroups tramsdownunder@...>
Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Re: Adelaide Track Laying

>The current Melbourne method is also the approach used in Central Europe. The reason Sydney is building the way it is is because its designed for Citadis trams. If the Czechs or Germans were using such trams, they would be using similar construction to Sydney's lines.
Could you explain this a bit more? Because it doesn't really make sense.
The Melbourne Citadis run on some mass concrete track, but it is certainly not the majority type for the routes they run (48 & 109). There are several sections of the concrete-to-sleeper-height-then-rock-and-bitumen method, eg Bridge Rd, Collins St, Docklands on the 48, and Whitehorse Rd, Victoria St, Collins St and Spencer St on the 109. (The 109 also of course has 2 ballast sections, a grass section, and other mass concrete sections). In fact, the Whitehorse Rd section is part of rt 109 only, so this section of track is almost exclusively Citadis. The reconstruction was documented by Mal: http://tdu.to/m/229747/re-whitehorse-rd-re-construction
There's similar variety on the 96 where the C2 run, but there's only 5 of them.

Similarly in Adelaide, the majority of the route the Citadis run is ballast track, with the rest regular-mass-concrete-to-rail-height-but-not-1m-thick. Even in the Gold Coast, the mass concrete sections are not as thick as Sydney.
Why does Sydney need concrete 1m thick in order to run Citadis, but other Australian cities don't?
And also, could you share more information on other Central European cities adopting Melbourne's current track construction techniques? Do they use the same style of half-sleepers? It would be very interesting to see how they are achieving the 3-7 day closures, given we usually only hear about works with closures of many months.

The Citadis fixed-trucks are more damaging to track than rotating bogies, and it is certainly evident on curves where such trams run - they get heavily chewed out, and you often see metal filings in the groove. But if the rail is laid on sleepers in bitumen, it's much easier to renew: put a road profiler/jackhammer on the bitumen, unclip the rail, clip in new rail, reseal the road. You could potentially renew short curved sections overnight with this method.
Just because Citadis are running on track in 1m thick concrete, doesn't make the rail itself any more resilient. It will still get chewed out and need renewal. Will this require the breaking of all 1m of that concrete?