My observation David is that Transdev doesn't know much about operating
trams and errs on the side of nannying and micromanagement. For all their
downsides, the Sydney trams are able to accelerate smartly. Deceleration is
a little restricted by only having 2/3 of their wheels powered. But, apart
from corners, nothing there justifies driving the trams like a hearse.

Tram stops are conventionally spaced at about 500 metres and this is the
case in Prague and I think a similar average in Sydney overall. Melbourne
is more like a bus system, with much closer (but optional) stops, I believe
as close as 200 metres.

Yes, the more doors, the better. Melbourne, as a professional legacy
system, is up to speed on that. The Sydney Citadis are fine (probably
because the operating consortium, not TfNSW, specified them). The Sydney
CAFs are a bit of a disaster, but that was TfNSW's fault for deleting doors
from the specification.

Tony P

On Tuesday 19 March 2024 at 18:12:32 UTC+11 David Batho wrote:

Observations:

1) Melbourne trams seem to be driven with more ‘verve’, accelerating away
from stops quite rapidly, whilst Sydney seems to be a little more relaxed
in style, with no sharp acceleration. Is this because the CAF trams cannot
do this, or because the drivers are instructed to drive that way (to avoid
the possibly of passengers falling over?)?

2) Stop spacing seems to be roughly about the same in Sydney and Melbourne.
Is there a standard for this?

3) How much of a difference does the numbers of doors available for loading
and unloading make to transit times when comparing Sydney and Melbourne?
[I’m thinking of comparisons like toast racks v saloon cars, or Bradifield
cars (In multi-door form) v later single-deckers, or single v double
deckers, in Sydney, or Tait/Swing Door v Harris in Melbourne.]

Thanks for this, Richard.

Good to see you back and posting.

David