I had forgotten about the asbestos aspect. However I think after that issue was raised, cable ties were used to 'lock' on the controller covers which were also sealed with silicon.
That was OK except it meant drivers could no longer cut out defective motors on a W5, not that I ever had to do that anyway on any Ws in my 5+ years of driving.
As for 728, I just phoned a friend who was also a workmate when the CC service started, but he could not recall when 728 got its RC equipment. So we trawled through Destination City. On page 120, last paragraph there is a list of RC equipped W5s in service as at 1 July 1993, and 728 was not amongst them while the list of Clyde cars also does not show it as being in service, so perhaps it was stored at that time.
(I don't know if anyone likes my work anecdotes, but here are 2 more).
One day I did 'take' a tram already in service on route 12 (112). By South Melbourne loop (a couple of stops) I was convinced that this tram was rather sluggish, so I removed the controller cover and discovered a pair of motors had been cut out. Whether done by shed staff (forgot to put back in after wheel grinding) or another driver as a prank, I don't know. Nevertheless it did go much better on 4 motors than it did on 2, but I wonder how many drivers had suffered it before me, especially since it was probably afternoon when I 'took' it.
The above discussion about 728 reminded us of that ##!@%$% 818. It must have been changed to RC control around the early 1990s, but whoever did it wired the resistance bank in 'back to front', patently obvious when you looked how the wiring loom was amateurishly attached to it.
The result was that 1st notch was normal, notches 2, 3. 4, and 5 gave almost no extra acceleration, while 6 and 7 resulted in heavy surges forward. Parallel did the same.
I did eventually manage to convince one of the deputy shed foremen of the fault, but in his opinion it was not a maintenance matter.
Some of us did take pride in giving passengers a smooth ride, but that tram was MOST UNSATISFYING to drive. It did not go to scrap soon enough!
Regards,
On 24/12/2012, at 11:04 AM, Mal Rowe wrote:
>
> On 24/12/2012 11:46 AM, Richard YOUL wrote:
>>
>> It was probably more the matter of standardisation.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> This still does not answer the question of 'why go to the botherof converting, with plenty of RC2 fitted cars to choose from?'
>>
> I have a vague recollection of being told (perhaps on this list) that the only reason 728 made it as a City Circle car was because it had already been converted to RC2 prior to selection.
>
> The Clydes disappeared (again my recollection) because the controllers had asbestos in them and it was considered neither cost effective nor necessary to remove it ... the cars were withdrawn.
>
> 728 was withdrawn in early 2011, but union leader Lou DiGregorio made a fuss and it was put back into service.
> See: http://www.tdu.to/123622.msg?sid=95152&p=3
>
> Not long after Lou's retirement it was quietly withdrawn again. The pic I posted earlier was the last time I saw it - in May this year.
> There are some pics of it in service after its reprieve attached to:
> http://www.tdu.to/123786.msg
>
> The vicsig records reflect what keen volunteers do to try to keep car histories up to date.
> They are as accurate as those observant volunteers make them.
>
> Mal Rowe - rather fond of W5s but indifferent to SW5s
>
>
>
>