There must be a marginal seat or two through which Prospect Road runs, No other justification for a tram to Grand Junction Road over other routes.

A. Prospect road and Churchill road are now high density roads. All of the full size house blocks are available for high density living - the developers are currently having a field day, turning 1 into 4, and even 1 into 8. In 10 years, the density will be much higher there than it is now.
B. It also has the benefit of running through North Adelaide and past Adelaide Oval. The benefits of this is not to be understated for the North Adelaide community.

Electrification projects have been on the agenda since WW2 with the profile of the 800 and 850 class cars being made with electrification in mind. Also the height difference on the duplication of the Eden hills tunnels was for ??????. And the jumbos and 3000 were made ready for electrification. and indeed the original electrification project called for 58 of the 3000 / 3100 to be electrified.
The infrastructure and funding were approved for the Gawler line around the same time as the Seaford extension. Work actually commenced on it before the Seaford work started. A tram line of 8 kilometres or a double track train line of forty kilometres ??? Which has the greatest capacity increases possible? A discussion today on 891 mentioned the impractical nature of running trams down the Parade, and Prospect road is even narrower I think.
And marginal electorates. The labor party lost Adelaide which includes much of Prospect area so yes they will probably hope to get it back with some pork barrelling. But the unsucsessful labor party candidate at the last election was the current Prospect mayor who is part of the group making the suggestion. John Rau is the labor member at the lower end of Prospect road and his vote dropped at the last election as well. So yes it looks political pork barrelling rather than real economic advantages.  

The railway line suffers low patronage from Dry creek with fifty percent of trains running past from Dry Creek to the city as express movements. This saves three minutes on what becomes an hourly service on weekends. Hardly a matter of track congestion even in the peak hours as all trains travel now from Gawler al the way to city instead of the coordinated limited stops and short services like Salisbury etc.
The load of seated passengers on the new 4000 is 222 per three car set in a fixed consist. a four car 2,000 set has a capacity around 420 passengers. But go back to a redhen set of six cars and you could move 720 seated passengers. So with improved technology we can only carry half the passengers per movement. OR LESS !!!!!!!! Even in the steam days the 5.07 pm to Brighton could carry 500 + passengers.

A discussion today on 891 mentioned the impractical nature of running trams down the Parade, and Prospect road is even narrower I think.

Those iron-barks are going to have to come out at some stage anyway... and I'm not sure why they planted them there to begin with, they drop sh*t everywhere and get straggly-looking.

The load of seated passengers on the new 4000 is 222 per three car set in a fixed consist. a four car 2,000 set has a capacity around 420 passengers. But go back to a redhen set of six cars and you could move 720 seated passengers. So with improved technology we can only carry half the passengers per movement. OR LESS !!!!!!!! Even in the steam days the 5.07 pm to Brighton could carry 500 + passengers.

I think the idea was that the electric train service was that it was going to be much more intensive and frequent... however as per discussions on other threads they appear to have missed the opportunity to install higher frequency signals while the Noarlunga line was shut. One train per hour after 7:30pm and on weekends is completely unacceptable - those off-peak frequencies are still an issue.

A discussion today on 891 mentioned the impractical nature of running trams down the Parade, and Prospect road is even narrower I think.

Those iron-barks are going to have to come out at some stage anyway... and I'm not sure why they planted them there to begin with, they drop sh*t everywhere and get straggly-looking.

Adelaide's trams (F and H classes) had the widest bodies in Australia and passed each other quite safely in Prospect Road as in every other. The Parade had three tracks outside the Norwood oval. It is the private car taking up disproportionate space (2 or 3 occupying that of one tram) and then taking up public road space empty for some hours before the single occupant drives home, which is the culprit. With the increased population density due to suburban infill and the inevitable banning of multiple vehicles to one dwelling (as many as 8 in some houses that I know) which are turning our streets into permanent car parks, there is going to be a need for vehicles which can carry large numbers of commuters.

The gloomy ironbark trees must be the most unsuitable urban street plantings ever made, and the sooner they are replaced by much more beautiful deciduous side plantings with Summer shade and Winter sunshine the better.

I have lived within a few doors of tramlines in both Prospect and Norwood and know from experience the gross diminution of service that accompanied the destruction of our large and efficient tramway system.

The day when car owners can hog grossly unfair shares of public property, whether moving or stationary, are rapidly coming to a close.

MOVE PEOPLE, NOT VEHICLES.

The load of seated passengers on the new 4000 is 222 per three car set in a fixed consist. a four car 2,000 set has a capacity around 420 passengers. But go back to a redhen set of six cars and you could move 720 seated passengers. So with improved technology we can only carry half the passengers per movement. OR LESS !!!!!!!! Even in the steam days the 5.07 pm to Brighton could carry 500 + passengers.

I don't know where you got your numbers from. A-City has 240 seats with a crush load capacity of 540. 2000 Class has 64 seats and 2100 Class 98 seats (4 Car set- 2 X 64 + 2 X 98 makes 324). I don't know how many Long Toms an old F Class could haul but I don't think 500+ seats could have fitted at the old Brighton Platforms.

The load of seated passengers on the new 4000 is 222 per three car set in a fixed consist. a four car 2,000 set has a capacity around 420 passengers. But go back to a redhen set of six cars and you could move 720 seated passengers. So with improved technology we can only carry half the passengers per movement. OR LESS !!!!!!!! Even in the steam days the 5.07 pm to Brighton could carry 500 + passengers.

I don't know where you got your numbers from. A-City has 240 seats with a crush load capacity of 540. 2000 Class has 64 seats and 2100 Class 98 seats (4 Car set- 2 X 64 + 2 X 98 makes 324). I don't know how many Long Toms an old F Class could haul but I don't think 500+ seats could have fitted at the old Brighton Platforms.

The numbers for the Red Hen cars sound a bit off as well.

Also worth considering the number of seats wasted in the 2000/2100 and much of the 3000/3100 fleet is due to the reluctance of passengers to use the middle seats of a 3-seat row if both the window and aisle seats were occupied. This is why a number of 3000/3100 cars have been converted from a 3+2 layout to a 2+2 layout, the effective seating capacity is roughly the same but the standing capacity is much higher with decent width aisles.

The total capacity is what is relevant for peak services on a suburban mass transit system, not the seated capacity. But it wasn't a suburban mass transit system in the steam days, Brighton was not an inner suburban destination but roughly equivalent to Seaford or Smithfield in being close to the outer edge of the Greater Adelaide area. Of course you would have wanted a seat if you're going all the way to the outer suburbs!

Justapax.
You obviously did not live along and use the Brighton/Marino line in the 50s and 60s. Peak services were about 4 trains per hour mostly with 6 to 7 ECL cars with passengers standing even in the front cars ex Adelaide. The area east of Brighton Road through to Oaklands was filled with returned servicemen and their families of baby boomer children. Not every one had motor cars so catching the train to work was the norm and most people worked in the CBD. If you wanted to go shopping Mum put on her best clothes and went into Rundle Street. Medical appointments were in the city.
Interestingly a number of Brighton residents known to me worked at WRE Salisbury and caught the train; I with others used to catch the train to Philips at Hendon; it was quite practical.

Quite obviously times have changed. The justification for the Seaford extension found that only about 10% of employed Seaford people actually worked in the CBD. The numbers didn't justify the extension or the electrification; justification for which was based on somewhat flimsier grounds like social amenity (see also political?).

SAR526 is a generation older and is decrying the motor car.

The fact is that much car use is actually involved in multiple destination trips which would not be viable with public transport. It is an observable fact that the roads are much freer during school holidays. Unfortunately the increase of motor vehicles in the 60s meant that workplaces, retail centres etc. were no longer tied to public transport. Note how far Marion shopping Centre is from Oaklands RS.

Long enough rant.

Maybe urban infill can make the demographic changes needed to make public transport viable.

Ian

Note how far Marion shopping Centre is from Oaklands RS.

And Oaklands Park RS was even further away.

Unfortunately the increase of motor vehicles in the 60s meant that workplaces, retail centres etc. were no longer tied to public transport. Note how far Marion shopping Centre is from Oaklands RS.

Long enough rant.

Maybe urban infill can make the demographic changes needed to make public transport viable.

Ian

Maybe cars and car travel will become unaffordable again now that there's no longer a local product. My grandfather said that ordinary people didn't have cars at all in the thirties but suddenly after the war Holden bought out a mass market car that everyone could afford. In my opinion there's a high chance 'average' people won't be able to afford cars again because of the downward pressure on wages and the $AUD; our terrible recent terms of trade tends to point in that direction.

Maybe cars and car travel will become unaffordable again now that there's no longer a local product.

I certainly hope that the lack of a local industry needing to be protected and subsidised will prompt governments to start weening private car users off the lavish subsidies they currently enjoy.

The big problem is the rate of car usage for short journeys, especially the school run. These journeys carry the greatest environmental cost as the cars are not being run long enough to get the engine properly warmed up, and they also make up the greatest portion of the congestion problem.

We need to be shifting to direct road pricing, so that those roads owned by the state governments (at least in metropolitan and commuter belt areas) can be effectively self-supporting instead of a drain on the public purse.

My grandfather said that ordinary people didn't have cars at all in the thirties but suddenly after the war Holden bought out a mass market car that everyone could afford.

It wasn't just Holden, it was a result of post-war prosperity. The distinctive aspect with General Motors was their marketing strategy of using an Australian brand name to achieve greater sales than other manufacturers' superior products in the same price bracket. Just think what would have happened if other manufacturers did the same - if, for example, the Morris Minor had been sold under a unique Australian brand name the whole large car market would probably not exist in Australia these days and there wouldn't be the aversion to front wheel drive cars.

South Australia is certainly worse off for it, when you consider the dismantling of the Adelaide tram networks.

In my opinion there's a high chance 'average' people won't be able to afford cars again …

For sure, the desperate attempts from governments of both major parties to hold off Peak Car in Australia have been a complete failure.

However, people will cope and adapt - just like they used to!

I certainly hope that the lack of a local industry needing to be protected and subsidised will prompt governments to start weening private car users off the lavish subsidies they currently enjoy.

Salary packaging cars giving them favourable tax treatment over people who walk/cycle/public transport is really stupid and it needs to cease immediately. It's a policy that directly puts more cars on the road instead of encouraging people to look at the alternatives. The problem is, as with every other damn thing in this country, there's a lobby group in the form of the salary packaging companies who were screaming blue murder when Gillard was threatening to take it away.

And as with every other hard choice that Julia Gillard faced as PM she caved in to the powers that be...

South Australia is certainly worse off for it, when you consider the dismantling of the Adelaide tram networks.

The dismantling of the Adelaide MTT was a really unfortunate politically-motivated decision by Playford to try and attract investment to South Australia; maybe at some stage in the near future a couple of the key trunk routes could be rebuilt in addition to the modernisation and extension of the Glenelg line.

For sure, the desperate attempts from governments of both major parties to hold off Peak Car in Australia have been a complete failure. However, people will cope and adapt - just like they used to!

Most town people walked everywhere until the advent of the tram and train networks; even then the majority of trips were still on foot until after WW1 when motor cars started to make inroads. Think of how our morbid obesity problem would disappear if cars became an exclusive the plaything of the rich again !

SAR526 is a generation older and is decrying the motor car.

I oppose the unnecessary use of the car and support taxation and road charges to discourage it. Believe it or not, I owned and used quite a few motor vehicles in my working days. For more than a year my daily return work journey was to a distant place 56 kilometres each way with no alternative but to drive, and others were to distant suburbs which involved a change of train or train/bus transfers of well over an hour duration with the occasional use of my car for 40 minutes or so.

I don't approve of driving children to nearby schools and I don't approve of a car trip to shops a few minutes' walk away. I remember when almost every tram stop or railway station had a cluster of neighbourhood shops for the convenience of commuters. They are still there – converted to other uses. That's when we were a community and neighbours knew each other.

Once I had a post box and shops at the corner of my street.  I now have to go to the shopping mall to visit a privatized unofficial 'Post Office' which sells all sorts of junk and other services while I wait in a long queue (but which still keeps public service as against general retail business hours), whence I return laden with household supplies which were once delivered free of charge to my door if they couldn't be brought home from a nearby shop..

How viable would big shopping complexes have been if they hadn't established extensive car parks to accommodate the hundreds of car journeys that clog our roads?

It is the change to the private car and the down grading of our public transport systems which has caused all this. We are stuck with it now, and very many daily car journeys are an unfortunate necessity. Very many, however. are not, and these need to be made much more expensive.

The fact is that much car use is actually involved in multiple destination trips which would not be viable with public transport. It is an observable fact that the roads are much freer during school holidays.

Let us by all means keep the freedom to choose our mode of transport, but also refrain from complaining when governments exact a charge according to the cost to society  – me for the short term use of a seat on a train, tram or bus, and car owners for the space (including the separation from preceding and following vehicles) and by the hour for littering a usable traffic or cycle lane with their empty vehicles.

We could then have plenty of money to bring our public transport to a standard approaching the convenience and relative lack of private vehicles cluttering the streets which is normal in European cities and once was in ours.

Issues are the lack of public transport at certain times of the day, Sunday mornings it's non existent and Saturdays are only slightly better.  
The tram down key roads is a good idea, just like the electric trains but running trains at a frequency of 15min during the day then hourly at night is a joke.
It would be smarter to run trains more often on the main lines and have feeder buses rather then bus services that parallel the trains.  
Go- zones are a joke they end up running hourly after 10pm.
First they should increase the frequency of services on trains (North and South lines) and go-zones on weekends to 20mins (Belair, OH and  spur lines 30min)
The new trams will run at a max of 20mins
A line or bus corridor that has a high frequency in the day should have a good frequency at other times.

First they should increase the frequency of services on trains (North and South lines) and go-zones on weekends to 20mins (Belair, OH and  spur lines 30min)

The Frankston line here in Melbourne went to a train every 10 minutes from 7am to 7pm a few years ago and now it's on Sundays as well; by the end of the year they're hoping to make it till 9pm every night. As a user it's really good because you don't really have to look at a timetable - if you miss one then you usually only have 8 or 9 minutes to wait anyway. I believe the change to frequent services has been a big success but there's not enough trains to make it work on other lines yet; the other issue is that it delays traffic because level crossings are closed for much longer periods of time so that factor has delayed its introduction on the Dandenong line.

I think your idea is sound and hopefully it's the way they'll go; Seaford and Gawler trains should be at least every half an hour till midnight - but the issue is that with Gawler not being electrified yet they can't interchange trains between the two lines for the time being. They desperately need to increase frequencies in the evenings and on weekends - it's too much of a part-time train service otherwise.