I thought it was 50 more E class & 50 F class plus a depot at airport West

On Mon, 3 May 2021, 4:53 pm TP, historyworks@...> wrote:

> What I was going to say that the next step up (requiring two extra modules

> because of the extra bogie on one end) would be a 40+ metre tram, too long

> for Melbourne.

>

> Tony P

>

> On Monday, 3 May 2021 at 16:49:12 UTC+10 TP wrote:

>

>> That would be a very untidy extension with a mixture of lengths, some

>> requiring two bogies, and random door placements.

>>

>> Tony P

>>

>> On Monday, 3 May 2021 at 15:55:36 UTC+10 Matthew Geier wrote:

>>

>>> On 3/5/21 3:50 pm, TP wrote:

>>> > 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:

>>> >

>>> An extra module can be added easily. It just has one bogie like the

>>> leading module in the illustration. You could have 'n' number of modules

>>> all with one bogie, except the last one. I'm not sure how stable this

>>> configuration would be, it may need some creative yaw damping.

>>>

>>> I note that in the UK there have been a spate of yaw damper mounting

>>> point cracks on railway rolling stock, two different CAF builds and the

>>> Hitachi IEC trains have suffered yaw damper problems.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

> "TramsDownUnder" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email totramsdownunder+unsubscribe@....

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/cc3330f8-c4c5-40ad-a6da-2deea4340b88n%40googlegroups.com

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/cc3330f8-c4c5-40ad-a6da-2deea4340b88n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

> .

>