The layout of this short 26 metre version of the E class would not be
amenable to adding additional modules later because of the need to add an
additional bogie to support the centre of the two module vehicle. It would
look like this:

https://www.skoda.cz/photo-ct-4840-1200-.jpg

Tony P
On Monday, 3 May 2021 at 15:36:05 UTC+10gregsut...@... wrote:

> Regarding the debate on future tram types for Melbourne are we putting

> the cart before the horse?

>

> Whatever is going to be required for the system in the future is

> dependent on patronage growth/decline .and system extensions over time.

>

> These figures/plans will determine the required fleet capacity, depot

> capacity and location over time, power demand and substation

> capacity/location over time and other infrastructure, workshop and

> operational needs .

>

> Then you need to consider economic factors

>

> For example operating two small trams rather than one larger tram is

> an additional operational expense and also involves more capital.

>

> Having trams that can be lengthened by addition of modules can be a

> saving by enabling the capital cost of rolling stock to be incurred over

> time rather than a one off and higher stock cost due to the peak up

> front expenditure.

>

> Has the Victorian government produced any future estimates for demands

> on the tramways capability over (say) the next 20 years? New or extended

> lines, cutting back in some areas etc

>

>

> Historically (1900 - 1910) the NSW Tramways learnt an early lesson when

> the C and D class 4 wheel cars were overtaken by growing capacity

> demands and were withdrawn from passenger service after a short 20 years

> in passenger traffic, being after 1908 by the 80 seatO class which could

> also be coupled providing a 160 seat capacity set.

>

>

> Greg

>

>