With a reduction in the number of stops, their is ~500 stop pairs to be
replaced in 26 months, with only 7 done this year 6 of which were funded by
the last Lib Government for the route 96 project
On Sunday, 29 November 2020 at 12:08:08 pm UTC+11 Robert Smith wrote:
> I saw somewhere else, the cost of adding a low floor section to a B class
> was $2m 10 years ago, and was not worth it as they are due for retirement
> in the early 2030's
> On Saturday, 28 November 2020 at 6:33:48 pm UTC+11
>> 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
>> 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.
>> 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:
>> A pdf of the report is at:
>> 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.