Ahh, Wolfgang to the rescue!
Well that page from Bamboozladier:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/light-rail-vehicles/flexity-trams?docID=0901260d8001269c
uses the words "100% low floor" a few times but some of the trams in the list (e.g. Adelaide, Frankfurt) actually have steps in the aisle. Honesty in advertising?
As far as I can see, the Melbourne E class almost exactly replicates the Frankfurt/Adelaide-type Classic (extended centre-module version of the Krakow type), except that those aisle steps have been suppressed into ramps. It doesn't look like much of a redesign to me. On the other hand I don't see much in common with the various permutations of the Swift design, which is why I'm asking the question as to why the "inner reasoning" of the managed corporation calls it a Swift!
And given that there may be no inner reasoning we'll never know!
cheers
Tony P
--- InTramsDownUnder@..., Wolfgang Keller <feliphil@...> wrote:
>
> > I note in Bombardier's publicity the E class is described as a
> > Flexity Swift rather than a Flexity Classic (e.g. Adelaide) which its
> > configuration almost exactly replicates:
>
> The vehicle for Melbourne has been entirely redesigned from previous
> "Swift"s/"Classic"s.
>
> > http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/light-rail-vehicles/flexity-trams?docID=0901260d8001269c
> > (lets just ignore the little porky there about 100% low floor for the
> > time being!)
>
> Since there are no steps inside, just ramps over the bogies, some could
> claim the Melbourne vehicles are 100% low-floor. I'm not sure whether I
> agree or disagree.
>
> > Does anyone have enough insight into the inner reasonings of the
> > Bamboozladier Company to explain this?
>
> "Inner reasonings" of a managed corporation? I think using the word
> "reason" in such a context would be inappropriate. >;->
>
> Originally the Swift vehicles were those designed and built in
> Vienna (just like the Outlook), while the Classics came from Bautzen.
>
> Technically, both had afaik little in common since when the original
> Swifts and Classics were designed, Bautzen was still DWA, while Vienna
> was already Bombardier. For example, the carbodies of the Swifts from
> Vienna were built according to a (imho pretty smart) "semi-drywalling"
> process developed in Vienna. The side walls and end walls were welded
> panels, but they were bolted/riveted onto the underframe and to each
> other, the roof was bonded on top. So the final carbody assembly was
> entirely "cold", eliminating all need for straightening. The Classics
> were entirely welded. Running gear was also different.
>
> Today, Bombardier has afaik given up the "semi-drywalling" assembly
> process (Bautzen seems to have won the internal turf war about this
> issue?) and now both Swifts and Classics are entirely welded. The
> running gear of the Melbourne vehicles is also entirely different from
> earlier Swifts. Both Swifts and Outlooks now use the same bogie
> "Flexx Urban 3000") with traction motors mounted longitudinally outside
> the wheels. Whether future Classics will use this bogie as well, I don't
> know.
>
> It may be that since the redesign, the only difference between future
> Classics and Swifts will be that all heavier vehicles with >200kN
> longitudinal resistance will be called Swift. Or that all vehicles with
> 2.65m carbody width will be called Swift. But I'm not so sure. The last
> "classic Classic" was/is afaik the eight-wheelset vehicle for Krakow.
>
> > a spokesman for Bombardier telling us that a Flexity Classic with two
> > internal steps suppressed into ramps is: "really complex,.. It's a
> > brand new [type of] tram that's being built and that's had its
> > engineering issues." I'd be interested to hear any feedback on this
> > from both the proponents of local manufacture and those with
> > knowledge of the capabilities of the manufacturer.
> >
> > And will it undergo a year and tens of thousands of km of acceptance
> > testing and certification like Czech trams
>
> Adopting this kind of procedure would indeed make a *lot* of sense. But
> this would have to be imposed by operator countrys' safety/homologation
> authorities, since due to organisational pathologies, manufacturers
> are imho extremely unlikely to do any testing that they're not coerced
> to do.
>
> Although, with streetcars there's typically a lot of operator-specific
> system functionality which can therefore not be tested with a single
> "generic" prototype.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Wolfgang
>