I think the planned F Class will be quite suitable. With a tram past where
I live every 80 seconds in the peaks and generally if the system is working
well, there isn't overcrowding in the suburbs. Yes, there is, or was before
you know what, past here.The overcrowding is more to do with unevenness of
service. It is hard to imagine a four minute gap in the peak service as may
happen now, and then five 35 metre long trams arrive together. I think
those who make comments about the need for long trams need to sit and watch
how Swanston Street/St Kilda Road trams operate. I will wear that the F
Class needs to be extendable. That's good future proofing.
The point in the newspaper article that batteries will reduce the drain on
substations is interesting. In W tram times, low power would mean the tram
was slow to accelerate and with dimmed lighting and frankly a bit of fun.
It was no big deal. In the 2000s insufficient power led to drain enough to
knock out the power, as often happened in Balaclava Road, also a bit of
fun. The message might come through the AVM system from Fleet Control for
drivers to use their power limit switch for trams with that option.
On Mon, 3 May 2021 at 16:34, Mal Rowe mal.rowe@...> wrote:
> On 03/05/2021 15:35, Greg Sutherland wrote:
> > Regarding the debate on future tram types for Melbourne are we putting
> > the cart before the horse?
> Planning is happening, but tram detail is not a public document.
> What is public is big investment in the Melbourne Metro Tunnel and the
> new "outer circle" Suburban Rail Loop.
> See: https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/metro-tunnel-project and
> These are likely to deal with a lot of PT growth without the need for
> major extensions to the tram network - except for the Fisherman's Bend
> Development and possibly trams to Monash University. There have been
> lots of proposals of and arguments about routes for both of these - but
> no decisions.
> > 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.
> There is no real danger of these shorter trams becoming obsolecent (like
> Sydney's C and D trams) within their lifetime.
> Note that the 100 new ("F class"?) trams are described as being
> replacements for the Z and A classes - of which there are probably 200
> remaining. 100 will be enough to replace 200!
> After that there are 110 high floor Bs to be replaced and by then the
> 100 C and Ds will be a nightmare to maintain.
> So, the smaller Fs are probably appropriate for the time being and there
> will be plenty more to come!
> Mal Rowe - expecting to see quite a few new trams yet
> 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