I would have to agree with Tony that now a days worldwide  the E class would be seen as being on the lower end of modern tram sizes.

At the upper end we see legacy systems such as Budapest operating 9 section CAF trams and similar sizeed trams from Seimens   The Budapest operations are first class and heavily patronaged.

For a more modern system we can note that Dublin, with significant sections of on road operations, which opened in 2004 with Citadis trams equivalent to Melbourne as their standard modern tram have now advanced to 9 section Citadis trams (or LRVs we are only talking semantics here).  With Alstom being forced to provide trams of an equivalent  length to Budapest to keep CAF and Siemens "off their territory".

The majority of present day tram/LRT systems operate coupled sets.  In particular take a look at the USA with 4 car lashups.

The running of coupled sets, as introduced in Sydney in the 1900-1910 period, was a regularpractice during this period in North America, Europe, Scandinavia, South America and elsewhere but it would be agreed that British 'expertise' appeared to know better!  It is of course interesting that for such an extensive system Melbourne avoided coupled set operation even though I have seen photos of a coupled set of Es out on the system on a test run.

As a point of interest what is the service frequency on the 96?

Greg

Tony P wrote

I'd only raise the point Andrew that the E class isn't a very long tram,
it's a standard tram nowadays. Even cities that still possess traditional
(approx) 15 metre trams typically run them in coupled sets to form a 30
metre consist. It's because of population/patronage growth and also because
the articulated bus now does the job of the 15 metre tram on a more
cost-effective basis.

Tony P

On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 22:36:20 UTC+10andrewh...@... wrote:

> It is a downgrade when a tram replaces a train, as happened with the Port


> Melbourne and St Kilda train lines. I don't blame those in charge at the


> time but it certainly increased travel times if you compare trains to


> trams/light rail.


>


> It was population growth in inner suburbs, higher population density that


> led to the need for very long trams with a high frequency rate on route 96


> and pre COVID overcrowding on the shorter C1 trams on route 109 to Port


> Melbourne. I suggest trams on those routes are moving more people to those


> destinations than trains have since post WWII. It is all about population


> growth and tourism over the last decade or so in St Kilda and Port


> Melbourne and not to do with the service offered. Though a quick train trip


> from both places would be better for many locals. Yes, the tram 96 was well


> extended over the train and made better for many than the fast St Kilda


> train for locals but not so for those at the former intermediate train


> stations, and nor those on the train from Port Melbourne.


>


> Andrew.


>


>