Skoda trams used to be cheaper than other brands on the market, but I
suspect that with their successful spread into the wider European market,
especially Germany, that margin may be diminishing. Skoda also has an
ownership stake in a couple of the cheaper Czech (Tatra adaptation) brands
and there is some cheap two-tier pricing, like a supermarket chain that has
a "bargain" offshoot under another brand. The astute customer - of whom
there are plenty in Europe - will go hunting for the best combination of
specification, quality and price. Alstom and CAF are very much one-model
manufacturers, with an alternative (Spirit, AXL) offered on the side for
those who want it, but not part of the main marketing thrust or engineering
design effort.
Trams that aren't 100% low floor aren't very well politically tolerated in
Europe, especially in an environment where almost all city buses have been
100% stepless low floor for some years (a feature that is now appearing in
Australia with Custom Denning and Volvo electric buses). Part high floor is
only accepted in metre-gauge trams with swivelling end bogies where there
isn't enough width between the wheels for a trench aisle.
I hope your prophecy comes true.
Tony P
On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 18:35:09 UTC+11a...@... wrote:
> 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
>
> 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 extension like this, with the Zs being withdrawn there was even a supply of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 histor...@...> 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
>
> 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/
>
> 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
>> >
>> > 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 - 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 totramsdownunde...@....
>
> 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
> .
>
>
>