Hay/george sts intersection

 
  edison Chief Commissioner

There will be connecting curves between the two LR lines at this corner. Which way will they operate?

Sponsored advertisement

  Matthew Chief Train Controller

There will be connecting curves between the two LR lines at this corner. Which way will they operate?
edison

There will be no regular interoperation. TfNSW has gone as 'standardised' different wheel profiles between the two lines.

They are building a new heavy maintenance centre out at Rozelle. Presumably, the junction will only see empty car movements for Citadis requiring the attention of the workshops at Rozelle. They will crawl through all IWLR points at slow speed and with great care. IWLR trams will not be able to run on the CESLR (or at least the sections with overhead) at all as the flanges won't fit.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
There will be no regular interoperation. TfNSW has gone as 'standardised' different wheel profiles between the two lines.
Matthew
Those clever buggers! And I thought things were bad in SA with choosing a narrower tram body profile to Melbourne. Now Sydney has two light rail lines that can't inter-operate.
Presumably, the junction will only see empty car movements for Citadis requiring the attention of the workshops at Rozelle.
Matthew
Wasn't there a large depot at Rozelle originally? History repeating.
  GeoffreyHansen Minister for Railways

Location: In a FAM sleeper
So will the CSELR line have tramway rails and will the IWLR have railway rails?
  mikesyd Chief Commissioner

Location: Lurking
[/quote]Wasn't there a large depot at Rozelle originally? History repeating.[/quote]

Yes, and IIRC it was actually beside Harold Park (in Glebe!!). The new one being built is beside the LIlyfield LR station - on part of the old Rozelle Goods Yard.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

There will be no regular interoperation. TfNSW has gone as 'standardised' different wheel profiles between the two lines.
Those clever buggers! And I thought things were bad in SA with choosing a narrower tram body profile to Melbourne. Now Sydney has two light rail lines that can't inter-operate.
Presumably, the junction will only see empty car movements for Citadis requiring the attention of the workshops at Rozelle.
Wasn't there a large depot at Rozelle originally? History repeating.
don_dunstan

I don't know what Matthew is smoking but both lines will be interoperable due to the depot being out at lilyfield. They will be the same 2.65 metre wide design as the Vario's and Urbos 3's. Obviously the current Urbos 3's won't be able to operate on the section with no overhead but it may also be possible that post CSELR opening that the Urbos 3's might be moved to Newcastle and Parramatta with the X05's doing both IWLR and CSELR. Not sure what Matthew is talking about in regards to wheel profiles, it's not like the trams will be doing high speed rail services.
  Matthew Chief Train Controller


I don't know what Matthew is smoking but both lines will be interoperable due to the depot being out at lilyfield. They will be the same 2.65 metre wide design as the Vario's and Urbos 3's. Obviously the current Urbos 3's won't be able to operate on the section with no overhead but it may also be possible that post CSELR opening that the Urbos 3's might be moved to Newcastle and Parramatta with the X05's doing both IWLR and CSELR. Not sure what Matthew is talking about in regards to wheel profiles, it's not like the trams will be doing high speed rail services.
simstrain
The CSELR will use smaller flanges than the IWLR which has a hybrid light/heavy rail profile. The 'back to back' profiles are also different. IWLR trams will not be able to run on the CSELR , and when a CESLR tram runs on the IWLR they will have to go through all points with extreme care as the check rails will not properly engage with the wheel backs meaning there will be a risk of splitting the points or jumping the frog.
I can't find the wheel profile standards again at the moment, but I found the back-to-back, and that's different enough to cause problems with the check rails. (1362mm vs 1386mm)

There is more to interoperability than just the body width and overswing on curves. But even that has been specified differently between the two lines - Platform offset from track centreline 1400mm vs 1361mm

This has been enshrined in the TfNSW technical standards.

(I tried to put a link into the http://www.asa.transport.nsw.gov.au website, but the RP editor removed the URL)


The facility at Rozelle is not a running depot, but a maintenance centre. Day-to-day maintenance (cleaning, sanders, and other 'consumables') will be handled at the Randwick running depot. Rozelle will have the wheel lathe and presumably equipment to lift the trams and change wheel sets.
It would not surprise me to find that module swaps (traction, auxiliary and air conditioning) will also be done at Randwick and those modules will be repaired by 3rd parties off network.

So probably only a few times a week will a single unit Citadis will need to transit the IWLR for 'heavy' work at Rozelle.

They have at least specified that the two types can be coupled so that one type can rescue another.
The Urbos 3 have couplers that were specified to be compatible (for towing) with the Vario trams - so I guess this means the Citadis are getting Sharfenberg couplers, not the standard Alstom coupler.

The basic problem is TfNSW left it to the 'vendor' to specify a track system to suit the vendor's vehicle, instead of getting independent expert advice on the fixed infrastructure and specifying that the vendor comply with the published standards.
  TomBTR Chief Train Controller

Location: near Sydney
The basic problem is TfNSW left it to the 'vendor' to specify a track system to suit the vendor's vehicle, instead of getting independent expert advice on the fixed infrastructure and specifying that the vendor comply with the published standards.
Matthew
This negligence is the NSW crime of the century, I say.
  Spiritman Train Controller

Location: Camden, NSW
Next time you ride the IWLR, notice that the drivers are now slowing over the heavy rail crossovers.

S'man
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

The basic problem is TfNSW left it to the 'vendor' to specify a track system to suit the vendor's vehicle, instead of getting independent expert advice on the fixed infrastructure and specifying that the vendor comply with the published standards.
This negligence is the NSW crime of the century, I say.
TomBTR
I do not buy all this as the tram rail has been accessed from the same source as the existing light rail system. The rail supplier is not going to source specially rolled rail. Reading too much into the TNSW Standards.
  Matthew Chief Train Controller

I do not buy all this as the tram rail has been accessed from the same source as the existing light rail system. The rail supplier is not going to source specially rolled rail. Reading too much into the TNSW Standards.
nswtrains
There are also different rail profile specifications between the IWLR and the CESLR. Enshrined in the NSW standards. The European factory that is supplying rails to the current project has enough diverse markets for its rail, they can roll many different profiles. They have specialised in this and can change rollers quite quickly (They have a dozen different profiles in their catalogue) - unlike the last Australian mill who would only produce one type of heavy rail and considered it way too much trouble to change out the rollers.

But the main issue isn't the straight rail - it's the points and the clearances for the check rails.

The last time they did major rail replacement work on the IWLR it resulted in damaged wheels and two derailments. I hope they get it right on the George Street junction and we don't end up with a fleet of CAF trams with damaged wheels when the special work is found to be only compatible with CESLR Citadis wheels and not IWLR CAF wheels.

I've got pictures of a Variotram motor bogie that shows what happens when you get the flange clearances wrong on a curve. You could cut paper with the flanges, they ended up so sharp from the extreme wear an incorrectly laid curve caused.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

I do not buy all this as the tram rail has been accessed from the same source as the existing light rail system. The rail supplier is not going to source specially rolled rail. Reading too much into the TNSW Standards.
There are also different rail profile specifications between the IWLR and the CESLR. Enshrined in the NSW standards. The European factory that is supplying rails to the current project has enough diverse markets for its rail, they can roll many different profiles. They have specialised in this and can change rollers quite quickly (They have a dozen different profiles in their catalogue) - unlike the last Australian mill who would only produce one type of heavy rail and considered it way too much trouble to change out the rollers.

But the main issue isn't the straight rail - it's the points and the clearances for the check rails.

The last time they did major rail replacement work on the IWLR it resulted in damaged wheels and two derailments. I hope they get it right on the George Street junction and we don't end up with a fleet of CAF trams with damaged wheels when the special work is found to be only compatible with CESLR Citadis wheels and not IWLR CAF wheels.

I've got pictures of a Variotram motor bogie that shows what happens when you get the flange clearances wrong on a curve. You could cut paper with the flanges, they ended up so sharp from the extreme wear an incorrectly laid curve caused.
Matthew
The rail laid in Hay Street etc for the original Fish Markets project was sourced overseas and actually air freighted to Australia. I do not know what an Australian supplier had to do with it except for the standard 60 KG rail laid from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill. It beggers me why the existing track needed replacing as the axle load is very low and the existing trackage was OK. I mean, they used the existing track from Fish Markets to Lilyfield with just some re-grinding and sleeper replacement.

The vehicles running on the this section have a std rail profile and could run on the mainline easily enough. Are you actually trying to say the new sections are built with a tram profile with non conical wheels and narrow flanges?
  Matthew Chief Train Controller

The rail laid in Hay Street etc for the original Fish Markets project was sourced overseas and actually air freighted to Australia.
nswtrains

That was an epic project management fail - they apparently expected that BHP would roll grooved rail locally and didn't actually check with BHP or Melbourne at the planning phase. Then once things got underway they found out they couldn't get the right rail locally. Project deadlines meant they had to get the rails air-freighted in.
I think the same company is supplying the CESLR rails - except this time they were ordered early enough to ship by sea from Austria.



I do not know what an Australian supplier had to do with it except for the standard 60 KG rail laid from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill. It beggers me why the existing track needed replacing as the axle load is very low and the existing trackage was OK.
nswtrains

The Darling Drive curve next to the power house - it's grooved rail around the curve and then transitions to 'heavy rail' as it straightens out. The rails wear much faster in the sharp curves.
Most of the 'rail' portion of the line is still using original rail from the goods line. All the rest of the grooved rail is also original.



The vehicles running on the this section have a std rail profile and could run on the mainline easily enough. Are you actually trying to say the new sections are built with a tram profile with non conical wheels and narrow flanges?
nswtrains


Yep - the CESLR will be using a 'standard' European tram profile, different from the hybrid profile on the IWLR. (Which is also a European profile, but a 'tram-train' one).  TfNSW has written this difference into their recently published Light Rail standards.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

The rail laid in Hay Street etc for the original Fish Markets project was sourced overseas and actually air freighted to Australia.

That was an epic project management fail - they apparently expected that BHP would roll grooved rail locally and didn't actually check with BHP or Melbourne at the planning phase. Then once things got underway they found out they couldn't get the right rail locally. Project deadlines meant they had to get the rails air-freighted in.
I think the same company is supplying the CESLR rails - except this time they were ordered early enough to ship by sea from Austria.



I do not know what an Australian supplier had to do with it except for the standard 60 KG rail laid from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill. It beggers me why the existing track needed replacing as the axle load is very low and the existing trackage was OK.
The Darling Drive curve next to the power house - it's grooved rail around the curve and then transitions to 'heavy rail' as it straightens out. The rails wear much faster in the sharp curves.
Most of the 'rail' portion of the line is still using original rail from the goods line. All the rest of the grooved rail is also original.



The vehicles running on the this section have a std rail profile and could run on the mainline easily enough. Are you actually trying to say the new sections are built with a tram profile with non conical wheels and narrow flanges?

Yep - the CESLR will be using a 'standard' European tram profile, different from the hybrid profile on the IWLR. (Which is also a European profile, but a 'tram-train' one).  TfNSW has written this difference into their recently published Light Rail standards.
Matthew
Thanx for the informative reply. The section from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill was definitely re-laid with concrete sleepers and new 60 KG rail. I have noted the rail weight stamped into the rails as 60 kg/m. I have no idea why the existing track was not used. Talk about gold plated projects.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner


Interesting stuff. Out of interest, how much work is involved in converting the IWLR to CESLR standard? Obviously changing the wheels or bogies on a dozen or so trams for a start. Did this have anything to do with the derailments a few years back?
  Matthew Chief Train Controller


Interesting stuff. Out of interest, how much work is involved in converting the IWLR to CESLR standard? Obviously changing the wheels or bogies on a dozen or so trams for a start. Did this have anything to do with the derailments a few years back?
kitchgp
Don't have to change the wheels - when the Rozelle maintenance centre is finished, send em all over the wheel lathe.
But all the points would need their check rails modified. Between Rozelle and the city they may have to make some adjustments anyway to allow the city Citadis to reach Rozelle without the risk of derailment.

The IWLR recently imposed a blanket 15km/hr speed restriction overall points.

I hope that some sort of sanity will prevail and they will regularise the profiles between the two lines. The two lines will be operated by the same concession and I would image Transdev would like the option to run Citadis to Dulwich Hill. Only Transdev do not own the trams or the tracks. so don't know how much of a say they get in this.


The derailments a few years back were caused by 'sharp' flanges. Very worn flanges. This damage was apparently caused over only 1 weekend after the Darling Drive curve was renewed but not 'gauge widened' in the curve during the work making the curve 'tight'. The wheels on all trams (except 2106 which they subsequently scrapped instead) were replaced over a two week period.

You can turn a larger (railway) flange down to match the smaller tram profile, but you can't add metal back all that easily Smile
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner


I hope that some sort of sanity will prevail and they will regularise the profiles between the two lines. The two lines will be operated by the same concession and I would image Transdev would like the option to run Citadis to Dulwich Hill. Only Transdev do not own the trams or the tracks. so don't know how much of a say they get in this.
"Matthew"


Thanks. If the status quo remains then presumably transfers to Rozelle will be similar to the old Sydney tram and Victorian Railways Brighton Beach tram heavy rail transfers, however that was done.
  Matthew Chief Train Controller



Thanks. If the status quo remains then presumably transfers to Rozelle will be similar to the old Sydney tram and Victorian Railways Brighton Beach tram heavy rail transfers, however that was done.
kitchgp
The tram transfers of the railway were why the steam motors survived. They had railway profile wheels fitted. They also carried special plates they stuck in the frogs of any points they crossed to make sure the smaller tram flanges didn't derail. And did this at very slow speed. The railways would have been reluctant to allocate a path to the tram transfers as they went so slowly.

This complicated process messing about with each set of railway points they crossed lead to the construction of 'The Lizard' road trailer which then took over the job of transferring trams between the disconnected parts of the system.
  GeoffreyHansen Minister for Railways

Location: In a FAM sleeper
Will the CSELR profiles be similar to the profiles of the old Sydney tramways?
  62440 Chief Commissioner

Grooved tram rail was never produced at Whyalla so there has been no Australian rail of this type for decades.
Tram rail supplied by Whyalla was 42 kg/m with a sloping head so the rails would be laid level but the angle of 1:20 would appear.
Back to back is critical in flanged areas, a job in Adelaide required tampers to be craned and trucked round a section of grooved rail. There are also rail welds there which connected grooved section to normal AS rail, the most complex I know; AS rails bent in Castlemaine, ground in Melbourne and welded in Sydney!
Heavy rail flanges are deeper than tram flanges generally.
Adelaide was looking at mixing light and heavy rail on one line but fortunately have been convinced it is a no-go.
  edison Chief Commissioner

Some time ago, a very senior member of the tram fan community suggested that Hay/George should be fitted with a grand union junction, as per Balaclava Jun, or as was King William St/Nth Terrace, Adelaide. This was clearly tongue-in-cheek, as there is not the physical space for this.
However, there is  to be a connection; my question is which corner will the curves be, and will they be single or double track?
The issue of wheel/flange profile is another kettle of fish altogether. If the two lines are to have different profiles, will the track change from one to the  other half way round the curves, or what?
Looking at past examples of this situation, how did the two profiles line up at places where tramway and railway met up, end-on, such as Botany Rd siding, Ashfield, West Ryde, St Leonards (and Rockdale?).
Where the new and existing lines will cross each other, won't there need to be some fancy welding, and will trams on one line make more noise on the crossing than in the other.
BTW, did anyone notice Thermit being used on the recent Town Hall ceremony?
  edison Chief Commissioner

Further to my previous post re the George/Hay Sts connection, there was recently a similar situation in Dublin, and there is somewhere a time-lapse video of same. The Irish job seems to have taken 24 hours - the Sydney job, which involves  bus replacement between Central and Star City, is expected to take about three weeks.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Further to my previous post re the George/Hay Sts connection, there was recently a similar situation in Dublin, and there is somewhere a time-lapse video of same. The Irish job seems to have taken 24 hours - the Sydney job, which involves  bus replacement between Central and Star City, is expected to take about three weeks.
edison
Melbourne has it down to a fine art too, I recall the junction at Burke Rd and Riversdale/Camberwell Rds being replaced a few years ago in one weekend complete with new wires.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Further to my previous post re the George/Hay Sts connection, there was recently a similar situation in Dublin, and there is somewhere a time-lapse video of same. The Irish job seems to have taken 24 hours - the Sydney job, which involves  bus replacement between Central and Star City, is expected to take about three weeks.
edison
Hi Edison

If its this Irish job in Dublin, the 24 hour reference is the fact they worked 24 hours per day. The actual job according to the Website took "less than a month", which looking at the number of night works in the time lapse looks about right. Its similar to Sydney in that a new track crosses an existing track though only one new track in the Irish case.



https://youtu.be/qIaY8E7Zhq0

Reference for timeline Dublin Tram Red Line cut in

Cheers
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Further to my previous post re the George/Hay Sts connection, there was recently a similar situation in Dublin, and there is somewhere a time-lapse video of same. The Irish job seems to have taken 24 hours - the Sydney job, which involves  bus replacement between Central and Star City, is expected to take about three weeks.
edison

It is more then just track construction going on throughout the whole of George street with significant infrastructure and utilities renewal also taking place at the same time.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.