A most interesting report. It does answer some questions that have been raised in the last couple of days. It gives a total cost for replacement E class trams, from which one gets the Cost of an E class is $6.99M/tram (271 high floor trams with replacements to cost $1.68B). It also gives a cost for platform stops, at $1.27M/pair of stops. Whatever, the roll out of level boarding stops is way behind what is needed. I am not certain what the cost of the elevated track parallel to Sydney road is (who does?), but I suspect that it is far more than the cost of replacing all the non-level boarding stops. A Stop Rollout Strategy is to be produced by June 2021 (with luck!) which will cost $3.1M (funded in the 2019/20 budget). At that date DOT have to replace 1215 stops (pairs? or singles?) by 31 Dec 2022. I foresee the need for an exemption and extension.
New Trams
A most interesting section states:
"DoT demonstrated to us how it plans to replace all high-floor trams with low-floor trams by the 31 December 2032 DSAPT deadline. However, achieving the target is contingent on DoT receiving sufficient funding to procure another 255 low-floor trams (E-Class or Next Generation Tram or a mixture of both) to replace 307 high floor trams on the network. DoT purchased 10 more E-Class trams in 2018 and received funding in 2019 for a further 10, which will bring the total to 100 for this type of tram.
DoT intends to replace 1.2 high-floor trams with one low-floor tram. This means that to achieve the 31 December 2032 DSAPT requirement, DoT will need to commission 28–30 low-floor trams per year from 2020 until 2029.
*This rollout is ambitious and is more than double the current delivery achievements for the E-Class tram.* The future delivery schedule also needs to allow for required manufacturing time frames plus any extra testing that may be required for a new class of tram like the Next Generation Tram.
Based on available evidence, it can take three to four years to manufacture and commission a new tram, although DoT believes this lead time could reduce after the selected manufacturer’s design and production processes have matured, allowing for a ramp up in the rate of delivery part way through a multi-year build program.
To get the money required to build 255 low floor trams by 2032 is rather like wishing that pigs might fly. We will shortly (?) get 100 E class - it has taken 8 years (11/13 to some time in 2021, hopefully) to get 100 E class. Deliveries should improve a bit with the guaranteed money for 100 in the budget, but even so, this means working 2 shifts for Bombardier.
What the report did not mention was a need to think about replacing the C class - 36 trams built 2001/2. While the Z and A and B cars are much older, in general they are in 'fair' condition and probably the C class should go first (built 2001/2). This means a horrible hole in the procurement program.
I can therefore only return to a solution that I have floated a few times before, the lengthening of the A and/or B class. A new middle section for the B class could be produced fairly cheaply by any competent bus builder, and given the quality of Bustech's single deck buses (using parts made in China!) it should be able to do the job. If Z cars are being scrapped, there will be plenty of spare bogies for the extra articulation. The B class need a thorough overhaul - rather like the current life extension they are getting now. This should be able to give anything from 50 to 100 B3 class trams which would provide a partly low floor tram to last till 2050. If W class can still be fixed to to near as new condition, it should not be impossible to do the same to B class cars. Yes, I know that the W cars had wooden bodies and effectively the rebuilt cars have completely new bodies except for the brass fittings, but Melbourne does not have salt on the roads which kills steel bodies.
The A class cars need a low floor extension, by cutting off one end and adding a low floor body, and then replacing the end. There would be a bogie about half length of the extension, but this does not need to swivel. In fact, it would be ideal for the wheels to be under the seats. Usual seat spacing for facing seats in Melbourne is 1.5 m, thus seats would happily cover the wheels for a 1.8 m wheelbase. Yaw problems as on the C class are possible, but these should be eliminated by suitable springs and dampers.
This would give another 50 or so low floor trams and make possible the complete provision of a low floor fleet by the 2032 deadline.
Regards
Dudley Horscroft.
On 28/11/2020 3:37 pm, Mal Rowe wrote:
> Victoria's DoT has been criticised in a damning report by the Victorian Auditor General for lack of even a plan to meet disability access requirements on trams.
>
> The report is at: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/accessibility-tram-services
>
> A pdf of the report is at: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/20201015-Accessibility-Trams-report.pdf
>
> VAGO says that: "DoT does not have conclusive plans for how it will create an accessible tram network, 18 years after DSAPT was established.".
>
> The attached chart from the report shows what would be required to meet the legislated targets of stops compliant by 31 Dec 2022 and trams compliant by 31 Dec 2032 compared to current levels of progress.
>
> There's an interesting comment on p63 of the report: "An interactive design process is underway for the Next Generation Tram involving major rolling stock manufacturers who are working with DoT to design a tram that will be suitable for Melbourne’s network, as well as meet DSAPT requirements." In a later paragraph there is reference to the need for funding in the 2020-21 budget to allow this to proceed - funding that is now presumably in place.
>
> Mal Rowe - who sees this as a landmark report.
>
>
>
>
>