Considering the less than 2 km distance between Moore Park and Central,
there was no problem with the number of six artics that would have filled
up the available road doing a continuous loop. The event buses actually
have a dedicated loop terminus at Moore Park on the site of the old tramway
loops and where a loop should have been built for CSELR event trams! The
issue is that the buses were supposed to supplement the trams, not do the
whole job for them! The other thing is that the bus loop is out of sight of
the tram stop, so most people would have gone to the tram stop and waited
there in the rain, unaware that there was a duplicate bus service from a
well-sheltered stop nearby. Poor design and poor management. I guess next
time we'll see everybody who learned from experience heading for the bus
terminus and ignoring the tram.
The other issue is that, in spite of knowing that there would be 30,000
people at the venue, TfNSW didn't consider it necessary to authorise
additional LX trams to infill between the regular trams. Even in the event
of the points failure, I believe that was further upstream, so the LX trams
would have been able to continue operating even if the regular route trams
were held up.
As an aside, I do wonder how they go with running LX trams in between the
regulars at a combined 2 minute headway, considering the shunting required
at the event stops. Do they really manage to trundle one of those 67 metre
trams into a siding, get the driver to waddle the distance to the other end
(on the ground, considering the tram is a coupled set), go through the
startup procedures and run back into the platform two minutes before the
next regular tram arrives? This is why, in the early planning, in lieu of
loops, we recommended triple platforms at Circular Quay and Central, while
others and I urged for loops at Moore Park and Randwick Racecourse. The
railway types, in their wisdom, thought that shunting stubs would be OK at
the two venues. Unfortunately, I don't live there to observe how this goes
in practice, but the way the trams trundle around generally, I can't
imagine it happening with the precision of a Swiss watch. Perhaps this is
why TfNSW doesn't encourage the use of extra event trams - they've learnt
that the operation has a good chance of stumbling over itself.
On a side note, the reason for the third platform at Circular Quay was to
provide for a future two-minute headway operation. The third platform
should be permanently empty under the current 4 minute service, but I hear
reports that there are sometimes three trams parked there. Now how would
this happen I wonder? (Guessing the answer.)
(who is absolutely not a fan of stubbed tram systems)
On Monday, 23 January 2023 at 08:52:54 UTC+11gregsut...@...
> Looks like we have not heard the end of this fiasco.
> There was a par on today's ABC Sydney's 7;00 am new bulletin.
> The 'flooded points' and the associated bus failure (only 6 artics) were
> On 21/01/2023 2:37 pm, Mark Skinner wrote:
> It's almost as if, from start to finish with light rail, that TfNSW has
> sabotaged the government. The exorbitant cost and outrageous project time
> in which almost every decision cost more or degraded performance is now
> compounded by this series of events. I do accept that big projects will
> always have ups and downs. However, when a project is consistently
> underperforming is not the time for shrugging shoulders and bulling ahead.
> Of course, one of the reasons for representative government is to curtail
> out-of-control feral bureaucracy. So, obviously the Government has to take
> responsibility too. A few top heads rolling in 2017 AND selection of
> competent replacements could have changed history.
> Mark Skinner
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023, 11:13 am TP, histor...@...> wrote:
>> At that time of night, regular route trams are passing through Moore Park
>> every five minutes, giving a capacity of about 5,400 persons per hour per
>> direction. Insertion of LX trams in between should double that capacity,
>> assuming they can undertake the operation with Swiss watch-like discipline.
>> Addition of the five artic buses should provide another 1,000-1,500 pphpd
>> on top of that, let's say about 12,000 pphpd. Then the trams fell over,
>> leaving the artics to do the job. The stadium crowd size was 30,000. The
>> balance is supposed to be picked up by private cars and walking. Not
>> brilliant, considering the capacity of the former tram system to move
>> 60,000 per hour at that venue.
>> In Sydney, Olympic Park will be perfect once the metro opens through
>> there. SUburban event trains manage until then. Other states seem to do a
>> lot better than Moore Park. Perth's new Optus Stadium has been designed to
>> be served by public transport only and trains and buses can lift an entire
>> capacity crowd of 60,000 on their own.
>> Tony P
>> On Friday, 20 January 2023 at 21:35:46 UTC+11 TP wrote:
>>> After the trams finished, Moore Park events were served by buses and
>>> there were never enough of them. Exiting the venue onto an abundance of
>>> trams that swallowed the crowds up was replaced by waiting for occasional
>>> buses and then running frantically to get on one in case it was the only
>>> one (you never knew in those days before transport apps on phones).
>>> Illustrated in the attached Fairfax photo (which I've titled "Fall of the
>>> Roman Empire")..
>>> At the Elton Johns concert, the trams barely did the job of that single
>>> bus. There were six artic buses supplied for the event by Transit systems
>>> and they were the lifesavers.
>>> Tony P
>>> On Friday, 20 January 2023 at 19:09:35 UTC+11gol8...@...
>>>> I think that I see where you gents are going wrong. Melbourne has those
>>>> funny old trams whereas Sydney has a "Modern light fail, er, rail"system.
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:tramsdo...@... [mailto:tramsdo...@googlegroups.com]
>>>> On Behalf Of Matthew Geier
>>>> Sent: Friday, 20 January 2023 4:36 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Light rail fails in the hour of need
>>>> On 20/1/23 15:52, Mark Skinner wrote:
>>>> > So...what happens if a driver selects the wrong road by mistake?
>>>> > Surely, they can get out and change the points manually?
>>>> In Sydney drivers do not select the points, the 'traffic computer'
>>>> (AVLS) does. It also controls the destination screens.
>>>> If the AVLS is down or not communicating with the master control
>>>> computer, the OCC will direct the drivers to select points using the
>>>> direction selection buttons on the console. A selector switch to be
>>>> turned from auto to manual before those buttons work. The locations of
>>>> the beacons are marked track side.
>>>> Basically it appears the function of an LRV driver to read the AVLS
>>>> screen and follow it's directions. The only autonomy is 'don't run over
>>>> pedestrians'. Every thing else is regulated by computers.
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email totramsdownunde...@....
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "TramsDownUnder" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email totramsdownunde...@....
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TramsDownUnder" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email totramsdownunde...@....
> To view this discussion on the web visit