This parallels what I said about standardising platforms at 60 metres (or
at least leaving ground space for lengthening). Likewise, tram designs
should be selected on the basis that modules can be added to extend them
into (approx) 45 or 60 metre vehicles in the future. Like Sydney, Melbourne
is going to grow into a city of 8 million people and future capacity
requirements will be trending in the upwards, not downwards direction.
There will be a point where there will be a limit on having closer headways
(including lack of looping!) and the only other way to increase capacity
will be longer trams.

Tony P

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 12:59:32 UTC+10, Greg Sutherland wrote:
>

> The major variable in the question of new trams is the actual

> length/capacity of the individual unit.

>

> You should be looking at a working life of say 40 years and specify your

> new tram accordingly. (Hint: This requires an appreciation of passenger

> demand long term. Sydney's original tram planners learnt an early

> lesson with the 'tiny' C class being replaced with the large capacity O

> class well before the life expiry of the Cs.)

>

> Dublin is a case of interest having gone from initial tram lengths of 3

> modules to 5 modules, 7 modules and now 9 modules.

>

> Experienced operators are avoiding the extra costs and less effective

> utilisation of vehicle footprint by turning away from coupled set

> operations.

>

> Greg

>