Hi Matthew,

You raise an interesting point.

It's my understanding that the date usually recorded is the date of entry into service - that's what PTV does in their official records in Melbourne.

(I attach a sample from the current franchise agreement)

However, there is a practice of recent times of long 'run-in' periods before being placed in public service, complicating the issue.

I'll still go for date of entry into service for consistency, but can see other arguments!

Mal Rowe - amateur data manager

On 13/05/2019 10:11, Matthew Geier wrote:
> People only interested in reminiscing about Melbourne trams please skip :-)

>

> I recently were given a box of folders containing the commissioning records for the Sydney Variotrams.

>

> It looks like the final assembly of 2107 at Dandenlong started on or near the 7/8/97 - when the 'bogies to body' procedure was signed off. The modules were connected on the same day. From the 7th it would have been able to rolled around the workshop on it's own wheels.

>

> It was weighed on the 14/8/97 and 'prep for shipping' was signed off on the 14th.

>

> On the 15th an 'outstanding items' document was prepared and apparently sent to Sydney.

>

> 10 days later (25/08) a handover inspection was organized at Pyrmont.

>

>

> So what date should be considered the tram's 'birthday' :-)

>

>