I think what happened here was the Commune wanted to build the system as cheaply as possible, so the track follows the lie of the land pretty much, which is fair enough for a tramway.
But then a suitable tram is necessary, and this one isn’t it. What happened was that CAF was jonesing to get into the French market and crack the Alstom squirrel grip on new systems, so made what was almost a loss leader offer to get their foot in the door.
As far as I’ve seen so far the only other French tramway to buy CAFs is Nantes, the original second generation French system that kicked off the national revival of trams in 1985 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th1FJuBwC8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th1FJuBwC8c
After starting with high floor Alstom TFS1s, similar to Melbourne B class, they then studiously avoided the Citadis by getting the Adtranz Incentro, and then the booby prize, the Urbos 3.
They also stretched the TFS1s with a low floor section and have put them through a mid-life overhaul like the Bs are getting at Preston, for a good life extension. I still think the Bs would have benefitted from a low floor extension like this, with the Zs being withdrawn there was even a supply of bogies to use for the job. An opportunity missed to speed up the chronically slow implementing of disability access in Melbourne.
Those TFSs are possibly the best Alstom tram, along with the Regio Citadis and the 301/401 Citadis. Not 100% low floor but not as compromised in design as what followed. When there are buses running around with as many internal steps as some Sydney types a 70% low floor tram doesn’t look too bad, and the 100% low floor Citadis has a step up to the seats over the wheels. Of the five systems that bought the TFS - Nantes, Grenoble, Paris, Rouen and Ste Etienne, only Rouen has withdrawn them and they are now running in Gaziantep in Turkey.
I think in a way the current time is like the 1890s and 1900s, when a lot of competing patented technologies were sorted out till the patents expired and the dominant generic tramway emerged as the most efficient and reliable form. Now, with a tramway revival underway and demand (hopefully transient) for affectations like wireless operation opening the door to the proprietary product purveyors, this process will repeat and the dodgy/fragile/indulgent/extravagant/redundant stuff will once again be winnowed out until the durable generic form prevails.
For example, there will be much more appropriate use for batteries that pushing around a tram (or bus) that can be powered by wire, and soon that penny will drop as demand for electrically powered vehicles increases they’ll go to where they are needed rather than just wanted, the price premium over wired systems will move things in that direction.
Tony
> On 27 Nov 2021, at 5:17 pm, TP historyworks@...> wrote:
>
> Wow, that Besancon ride is a shock to see. One might attribute the decisions made at Besancon to lack of experience, but even the old, experienced systems were not immune from bungled decisions to buy fixed truck trams that were unsuitable for their cities, usually during the years 1990 to 2010 when a fully low floor tram design with swivelling bogies had not yet been developed, but political and legal pressure for fully accessible (fully low floor) trams was strong. For example, the Adtranz/Bombardier (later Stadler) Variotram may attract enthusiast affection here, but in Helsinki and Munich it attracted only severe buyer's regret.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_Variobahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_Variobahn
>
> So the history of cracking and failure in modern low-floor fixed-truck trams actually extends further than the infamous Combino episode, to other cases that didn't attract much publicity beyond the city of operation. CAF is only the latest in the list. You would think the lessons had been well-and-truly learned by now. And if anybody thinks that Alstom is immune, it's only a matter of time. Meanwhile, they're in enough trouble already with their swivelling bogie tram, the Citadis Dualis/Spirit (same design platform as Melbourne E class):
>
> https://manifestomultilinko2.wordpress.com/2020/07/12/citadis-dualis-and-citadis-spirit-tram-train/ https://manifestomultilinko2.wordpress.com/2020/07/12/citadis-dualis-and-citadis-spirit-tram-train/
>
> If Melbourne has come to the decision that only Alstom and CAF will be considered, then they're between a rock and a hard place.
>
> Tony P
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 16:11:56 UTC+11 Mal Rowe wrote:
> On 27/11/2021 15:47, Tony Galloway wrote:
> > The Besançon operating environment :
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3IimY2Vc8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3IimY2Vc8M
> >
> > All hills and curves, so the wrong tram from the start.
> >
> Thanks Tony,
>
> That track would be challenging for any fixed truck tram.
>
> The coincident curves (vertical and horizontal) at the 24 minute mark
> would be enough alone to break a Citadis.
>
> I am struck by the speed limit signs - they seem to be placed based on
> risk at points of intersection with motor and pedestrian traffic and not
> to reduce wear and stress to the tram and tracks on curves as in Melbourne.
>
> See for example: https://tdu.to/i/17251 https://tdu.to/i/17251 - where the curve is exaggerated
> by the telephoto lens and it's even a proper bogie tram.
>
> Mal Rowe in city with a challenge for the 'F class'.
>
>
>
> --
> 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@... mailto:tramsdownunder+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/5524c1b1-b6ad-4335-a52f-9fffabd5b575n%40googlegroups.com https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/5524c1b1-b6ad-4335-a52f-9fffabd5b575n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer.