I think it's an extreme stretch to say that Alstom and CAF have something
* serious * in their catalogues to offer Melbourne, with the exception of
the open question of whether Alstom will allow any Bombardier designs to
survive. I don't think there is any need or possibility to develop an
Australian-designed tram when there are plainly suitable models for
Australian operations available in the catalogues of other European tram
manufacturers. The better angle would be to organise local assembly of
whichever one of these wins a tender. The main issue is mandatory open and
competitive tendering, so it's not possible to "enforce" a standard tram
either within one state or across Australia. More important for the
commissioning body to have a detailed specification and performance
standards laid out in the tender.

I did a media search on Skoda in Germany because I haven't heard of any
issues as mentioned by Matthew. The German tram market is going gangbusters
for them and I know of no problems with the push-pull train for Bavaria
(similar versions of which have also been operating in Czech Republic and
Slovakia), other than a development delay. It has received homologation for
the whole of Germany. I think covid disrupted entry to service, which has
also happened with many projects.

https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/74854/skoda-transportation-high-speed-germany/

Tony P
On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 09:38:54 UTC+11 Mal Rowe wrote:

> On 17/11/2021 08:01, Matthew Geier wrote:

> > If Melbourne stands fast on its requirement to have rotating bogies,

> > both Alstom and CAF do have something to put forward. It's going to

> > come down to if fleet engineering calls the shots or treasury.

>

> I think that it is very likely that Melbourne will stick with its

> requirement.

>

> Melbourne learnt the hard way that not controlling tram selection is a

> bad idea - although the Citadis and Combino trams never ended up off the

> tracks for extended periods.

>

> Even the 'successful' C2s are restricted to one route with minimal

> vertical curvature.

>

> As has been said so many times - and over many decades - it would make a

> lot of sense to have an Australian standard tram - at least in terms of

> the basic chassis and drive train configuration.

>

> I'm not holding my breath for that one!

>

> Matthew: Your photo of a CAF bogie shows the way it connects to the tram

> body through closely spaced springs.

>

> See: https://tdu.to/m/263305

>

> I suspect that the cracks shown in the various pictures and described as

> being around the 'wheel arch' are in fact around the tramcar chassis

> where it attaches to the springs. It would be subject to enormous stress

> due to the twisting of the springs.

>

> Mal Rowe - who only did a couple of mechanical engineering subjects at RMIT

>

>