New stabling and maintenance facility for Maidstone

 
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
A few questions: With E class due to start operating on Route 58 in October, and pretty much zero spare space at Essendon & Malvern depot now, where will the E class trams for Route 58 be based?

Southbank? Preston?

I can't imagine there is much spare space anywhere else.
Gman_86
I imagine the Bs and D1s currently used will go elsewhere, possiblty replacing Z3s or As.

Secondly: When New Preston depot opened up, the old East Preston depot closed as an operational depot (is only used now to refurbish old trams and store withdrawn trams). Does anybody think this will mean Essendon depot's days could be numbered?


Finally: Is Essendon depot heritage protected or could the land be sold off to recover some of the costs of the new depot? I imagine that prime land on Mt Alexander Rd only a few kms from the CBD would be worth a pretty penny.
Gman_86
Nothing definite yet from what I can see, but if Essendon depot isn't needed, then it could be sold off (heritage permitting).

Sponsored advertisement

  tram1041 Locomotive Fireman

A few questions: With E class due to start operating on Route 58 in October, and pretty much zero spare space at Essendon & Malvern depot now, where will the E class trams for Route 58 be based?

Southbank? Preston?

I can't imagine there is much spare space anywhere else.
I imagine the Bs and D1s currently used will go elsewhere, possiblty replacing Z3s or As.

Secondly: When New Preston depot opened up, the old East Preston depot closed as an operational depot (is only used now to refurbish old trams and store withdrawn trams). Does anybody think this will mean Essendon depot's days could be numbered?


Finally: Is Essendon depot heritage protected or could the land be sold off to recover some of the costs of the new depot? I imagine that prime land on Mt Alexander Rd only a few kms from the CBD would be worth a pretty penny.
Nothing definite yet from what I can see, but if Essendon depot isn't needed, then it could be sold off (heritage perm
railblogger
At the moment the 58 is run with mostly Essendon trams,roughly 70/30 split with Malvern.Once the E's start in october the plan is to change this to make the E class the main tram on the route,and run most of the services,not just a straight swap with the Malvern runs and these will be based at Southbank only,Essendon will not get new trams,hence why at least the last 5 new E's are allocated there rather than alternating with Preston (odds and evens as they were doing),the route will be a mix of E's & B's.The D1's will stay at Malvern and just be absorbed into their existing routes.Also it means that there will be some spare Z3's around the place and there is some talk that the ones that are currently left unrefurbished will be put into storage.Hopefully this may mean that the B's that come off the 58 may go onto the 57 but my theory is that they will go to Glenhuntly to replace the last Z3's.I don't think that anything will happen to Camberwell's A class yet,but there is also the question of route 30,will it still exist in the present form and what will run on it or will they put another route in Latrobe st to absorb it,possibly the 75 instead of going to Docklands,but IMHO the 12 (shared between Southbank & Kew) would be the best fit.
Essendon depot will stay as is,where is and the 59 will stay B only at least until the new F class comes along.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Is it your opinion or a fact that route 12 is shared between Southbank and Kew?
  steve195 Train Controller

I don't think that anything will happen to Camberwell's A class yet,but there is also the question of route 30,will it still exist in the present form and what will run on it or will they put another route in Latrobe st to absorb it,possibly the 75 instead of going to Docklands,but IMHO the 12 (shared between Southbank & Kew) would be the best fit.
tram1041
The Latrobe St conundrum has been floating around got a while now, with none of the recent ministers signing off on it for whatever reasons.
They really should bite the bullet and send route 12 down LaTrobe st (route 30 could stay on as a peak route if required). This will somewhat improve the Latrobe St service, and clear out some of the A classes clogging up Collins St.

The other change easy change that has been floated for a while is to swap the western ends of the 11 and 109.
Sending the 11 down to Port Melbourne increases capacity on that busy section by upgrading from C1 to E class trams - and there is plenty of room at Preston for a few extra trams to cover the extra route kilometres. Conversely this means that the new 109 (Box Hill - Docklands) could run to a better frequency using exisiting Kew trams.

Getting a bit off topic, we should see a big route reshuffle post metro tunnel, with at least one or two Swanston St routes being sent up William St instead.
  tram1041 Locomotive Fireman

Is it your opinion or a fact that route 12 is shared between Southbank and Kew
route14
Actually a bit of both as when the decision was made that the 58 was to be the next E class route and running from Southbank it was stated there was not enough room for the extra capacity required and they would have to lose some trams (A class) and a solution/idea was put up to send some to Kew and turn the 12 into a shared route probably  running via Latrobe st,taking over the route 30 as Southbank did not have the room to provide full service on both the 12 & 30.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Good idea.  The depot runs will give some passengers a lift of 4 more stops.
  tram1041 Locomotive Fireman

I don't think that anything will happen to Camberwell's A class yet,but there is also the question of route 30,will it still exist in the present form and what will run on it or will they put another route in Latrobe st to absorb it,possibly the 75 instead of going to Docklands,but IMHO the 12 (shared between Southbank & Kew) would be the best fit.
The Latrobe St conundrum has been floating around got a while now, with none of the recent ministers signing off on it for whatever reasons.
They really should bite the bullet and send route 12 down LaTrobe st (route 30 could stay on as a peak route if required). This will somewhat improve the Latrobe St service, and clear out some of the A classes clogging up Collins St.

The other change easy change that has been floated for a while is to swap the western ends of the 11 and 109.
Sending the 11 down to Port Melbourne increases capacity on that busy section by upgrading from C1 to E class trams - and there is plenty of room at Preston for a few extra trams to cover the extra route kilometres. Conversely this means that the new 109 (Box Hill - Docklands) could run to a better frequency using exisiting Kew trams.

Getting a bit off topic, we should see a big route reshuffle post metro tunnel, with at least one or two Swanston St routes being sent up William St instead.
steve195
There was also a plan to swap the 11 & 86 further out too to have the 11 run via the 86 to Miller st and over The Hump to West Preston & the 86 via St.Georges rd & The Hump to make it more efficient and not as long and potentially changing the city terminus for both.
As far as route reshuffles go there are are few changes which could be put in place now while there is virtually no passenger traffic.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

It coincides with one of my plans.  They'll need another pair of connecting curves at Northcote.  The inner portion of route 70 and 75 can be swapped without additional infrastructure which would also shorten the running time of the longer route 75.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

The demand on Collins and La Trobe Streets will increase when the Metro Tunnel opens. For example, in most cases it'll be far quicker exiting Town Hall at the northern end and catching a tram along Collins, rather than trying an interchange at the southern end to Flinders Street or at Caulfield.
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

I don't think that anything will happen to Camberwell's A class yet,but there is also the question of route 30,will it still exist in the present form and what will run on it or will they put another route in Latrobe st to absorb it,possibly the 75 instead of going to Docklands,but IMHO the 12 (shared between Southbank & Kew) would be the best fit.
The Latrobe St conundrum has been floating around got a while now, with none of the recent ministers signing off on it for whatever reasons.
They really should bite the bullet and send route 12 down LaTrobe st (route 30 could stay on as a peak route if required). This will somewhat improve the Latrobe St service, and clear out some of the A classes clogging up Collins St.

The other change easy change that has been floated for a while is to swap the western ends of the 11 and 109.
Sending the 11 down to Port Melbourne increases capacity on that busy section by upgrading from C1 to E class trams - and there is plenty of room at Preston for a few extra trams to cover the extra route kilometres. Conversely this means that the new 109 (Box Hill - Docklands) could run to a better frequency using exisiting Kew trams.

Getting a bit off topic, we should see a big route reshuffle post metro tunnel, with at least one or two Swanston St routes being sent up William St instead.
steve195
12 Needs to go into Latrobe & Spencer as ran very happlily for 3 months last year, plus extend 75 up Latrobe St to St Vincents Plaza gives much better service in Latrobe St and gives continuous service with 12 along all of Spencer Sreet.
30 trams released allowing increased freuency of 11a shorts in Collins Street.

The ultimate plan is summized to be 86 to Port Melbourne and 109 straight down Collins to Victoria Harbour, eliminating turns at Spencer / Collins.  As part of the Metro 1 rail works are supposed to be 300m extra track in Park St South Melbourne and a new double curve pair at Park & Clarendon St allowing 5 to run from Domain via Park, Clarendon and Spencer Streets to Remand Centre and North Melbourne station.   Some vague suggestions of 58 being run in longer term as two overlapping bits  1.  West Coburg to Toorak Road via Domain Road. and 2.  Haymarket to  Toorak (Glenferrie Rd) therefore doubling service frequency in William St.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

12 Needs to go into Latrobe & Spencer as ran very happlily for 3 months last year, plus extend 75 up Latrobe St to St Vincents Plaza gives much better service in Latrobe St and gives continuous service with 12 along all of Spencer Sreet.
30 trams released allowing increased freuency of 11a shorts in Collins Street.

The ultimate plan is summized to be 86 to Port Melbourne and 109 straight down Collins to Victoria Harbour, eliminating turns at Spencer / Collins.  As part of the Metro 1 rail works are supposed to be 300m extra track in Park St South Melbourne and a new double curve pair at Park & Clarendon St allowing 5 to run from Domain via Park, Clarendon and Spencer Streets to Remand Centre and North Melbourne station.   Some vague suggestions of 58 being run in longer term as two overlapping bits  1.  West Coburg to Toorak Road via Domain Road. and 2.  Haymarket to  Toorak (Glenferrie Rd) therefore doubling service frequency in William St.
kuldalai
So I'm assuming the 75 turns left at La Trobe St/Docklands Stadium instead of continuing along Docklands Highway?

At first I thought it was weird that both the 86 and 96 turn left at Spencer St, but you've answered that with the 5 going up Spencer St all the way to North Melbourne (I think this route is long overdue). Turn left at Hawke St, Right at Adderley and it goes straight past both North Melbourne and Ardern Stations. Not sure how but would be nice to tie the 57 into that too.

Not sure why you'd double up the 58 unless that double frequency section is needed east of St Kilda Rd. Put in a turnback in at one or both of the hospitals north of Haymarket and re-route a Swanston St tram or two up William that way (like the 3 and if a second route either the 16 or 72). Would need to allow William St trams to go up the 19.
  Obzerva Locomotive Fireman

Location: #6 / Glen Waverley line
I don't think that anything will happen to Camberwell's A class yet,but there is also the question of route 30,will it still exist in the present form and what will run on it or will they put another route in Latrobe st to absorb it,possibly the 75 instead of going to Docklands,but IMHO the 12 (shared between Southbank & Kew) would be the best fit.
The Latrobe St conundrum has been floating around got a while now, with none of the recent ministers signing off on it for whatever reasons.
They really should bite the bullet and send route 12 down LaTrobe st (route 30 could stay on as a peak route if required). This will somewhat improve the Latrobe St service, and clear out some of the A classes clogging up Collins St.

The other change easy change that has been floated for a while is to swap the western ends of the 11 and 109.
Sending the 11 down to Port Melbourne increases capacity on that busy section by upgrading from C1 to E class trams - and there is plenty of room at Preston for a few extra trams to cover the extra route kilometres. Conversely this means that the new 109 (Box Hill - Docklands) could run to a better frequency using exisiting Kew trams.

Getting a bit off topic, we should see a big route reshuffle post metro tunnel, with at least one or two Swanston St routes being sent up William St instead.
12 Needs to go into Latrobe & Spencer as ran very happlily for 3 months last year, plus extend 75 up Latrobe St to St Vincents Plaza gives much better service in Latrobe St and gives continuous service with 12 along all of Spencer Sreet.
30 trams released allowing increased freuency of 11a shorts in Collins Street.

The ultimate plan is summized to be 86 to Port Melbourne and 109 straight down Collins to Victoria Harbour, eliminating turns at Spencer / Collins.  As part of the Metro 1 rail works are supposed to be 300m extra track in Park St South Melbourne and a new double curve pair at Park & Clarendon St allowing 5 to run from Domain via Park, Clarendon and Spencer Streets to Remand Centre and North Melbourne station.   Some vague suggestions of 58 being run in longer term as two overlapping bits  1.  West Coburg to Toorak Road via Domain Road. and 2.  Haymarket to  Toorak (Glenferrie Rd) therefore doubling service frequency in William St.
kuldalai

Would this plan result in the 5's operating hours being extended?

Always thought the frequency after 7pm along Dandenong Rd needed to be increased, especially on a Friday and Saturday night, a single tram every 20mins doesn't cut it.
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

12 Needs to go into Latrobe & Spencer as ran very happlily for 3 months last year, plus extend 75 up Latrobe St to St Vincents Plaza gives much better service in Latrobe St and gives continuous service with 12 along all of Spencer Sreet.
30 trams released allowing increased freuency of 11a shorts in Collins Street.

The ultimate plan is summized to be 86 to Port Melbourne and 109 straight down Collins to Victoria Harbour, eliminating turns at Spencer / Collins.  As part of the Metro 1 rail works are supposed to be 300m extra track in Park St South Melbourne and a new double curve pair at Park & Clarendon St allowing 5 to run from Domain via Park, Clarendon and Spencer Streets to Remand Centre and North Melbourne station.   Some vague suggestions of 58 being run in longer term as two overlapping bits  1.  West Coburg to Toorak Road via Domain Road. and 2.  Haymarket to  Toorak (Glenferrie Rd) therefore doubling service frequency in William St.
So I'm assuming the 75 turns left at La Trobe St/Docklands Stadium instead of continuing along Docklands Highway?

At first I thought it was weird that both the 86 and 96 turn left at Spencer St, but you've answered that with the 5 going up Spencer St all the way to North Melbourne (I think this route is long overdue). Turn left at Hawke St, Right at Adderley and it goes straight past both North Melbourne and Ardern Stations. Not sure how but would be nice to tie the 57 into that too.

Not sure why you'd double up the 58 unless that double frequency section is needed east of St Kilda Rd. Put in a turnback in at one or both of the hospitals north of Haymarket and re-route a Swanston St tram or two up William that way (like the 3 and if a second route either the 16 or 72). Would need to allow William St trams to go up the 19.
John.Z
75 currently termiantes at Docklands Central Pier which is just beyond Latrobe Strret in Doclands Boulevarde.

So the E class currently on Latrobe St 30 go onto 58 with other E making 58 a mix of artic trams including a lot of E class. That releases some B-2 class that go onto Route 75 allowing it to be extended up Latrobe St to St V Plaza (Eight turn at foot of Latrobe..  Either 30 stays as is or 30 goes into Collins St as extras to beef up 11a, and 12 comes out of Collins into Latrobe / Spencer as everyone supports except a slow Governemnt.  
86 turns right currently at foot of Bourke and 96 left. the objective should be to minimize turns as you get more trams through an intersection ifthey run straight.  So therefore 86 to Port Melbourne incraeses capacity and 109 to Victoria Harbour and 12 via Latrobe and Spencer.
Best way to link both North Melbourne and Arden Stations into the tram network.  Double track extension down Spencer left into Hawke St, right into Adderley. via Railway Place, Laurens St to Arden Street.  Plus from Spencer via Hawke to link at Errol and Victoria St, plus  Arden St at laurens up Arden St to link with existing at Abbotsford Street.
Ultimately patronage on Flemington Rd will require an inner short route.  best option would be from Flinders St staion via Elizabeth St and North Melbourne terminating at Moonee Ponds junction, with West Maribyrnong altered to run direct via Haymarket and Flemington Road.
With current 58  2/3 patronage is on the West Coburg side of the CBD and only 1/3 on the Toorak side.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

All the former Route 8 passengers get off at Kingsway, Domain (Anzac) and catch a tram up St Kilda Road and Swanston Street.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Even with all regular services using one direction of the points, it's still a compulsory stop.  The white tram priority arrows also don't allow enough time for two trams to go through in one cycle.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
Good idea.  The depot runs will give some passengers a lift of 4 more stops.
route14
Also a good idea sharing the 12 with Kew, if the occasional Citadis makes its way there. It's been how many years since a low floor tram ran on the 12 proper? When Southbank had half the C1 fleet they used to run on the 112 and even the 96 on the rare occasion. Malvern ended up with route 12 at some point and ran their D1/Z3 combo (might have even ran Z1s, but I never recall seeing one unlike on the 78/79).
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Do we definitely know the new trams will be shorter than the E class at only 22 meters as some people have said in this and other threads?

It seems a real backwards step to me especially if these new trams end up on current B class routes like the 59.
  steve195 Train Controller

Do we definitely know the new trams will be shorter than the E class at only 22 meters as some people have said in this and other threads?

It seems a real backwards step to me especially if these new trams end up on current B class routes like the 59.
Mr. Lane
The F class for now will be replacing the A and Z class trams, not the Bs. So it will be a capacity increase overall. I assume that having the F class be the same length as the Bs means we likely won't need major depot expansions at Brunswick / Malvern / Glenhuntly / Camberwell, and to be fair, 25m+ long trams would be overkill for a lot of routes.

Hopefully the government will put in another small order for 20-odd E class trams, so that a couple more busy routes like the 59 and 75 can get bigger trams.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

A low floor tram of the same length as B class will have significantly less seats than a B class in its original seating layout, as already demonstrated by C1 and D1 class.  A D1 class after restrengthening work has 4 less seats than a Z3 class which is about 4 metres shorter.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
Do we definitely know the new trams will be shorter than the E class at only 22 meters as some people have said in this and other threads?

It seems a real backwards step to me especially if these new trams end up on current B class routes like the 59.
Mr. Lane
22 metres roughly the same as a B2/C class, so I doubt it will be a backwards step.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

Assuming that F class trams are 22m (2 sections) with battery technology

If the E class trams can be retrofitted with batteries to allow them to run more easily on the network then these can be cascaded to routes such as the 109 and 75.

Then they should order a G class tram that is 44m (4 sections) with the same battery tech as the F class trams. Run it on the 86 and 96.

So the F class is a one for one replacement for the Z and A classes (~175 trams), then the G class trams are a one for one replacement for the B class trams (~150 trams). Then you have E (3 section), F (2 section) and G (4 section) and keep ordering the size tram as needed to replace the C and D class trams (a consistent supply of new trams to continue phasing out the oldest in the fleet and boosting fleet number as trams routes are added or extended).
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Do we definitely know the new trams will be shorter than the E class at only 22 meters as some people have said in this and other threads?

It seems a real backwards step to me especially if these new trams end up on current B class routes like the 59.
The F class for now will be replacing the A and Z class trams, not the Bs. So it will be a capacity increase overall. I assume that having the F class be the same length as the Bs means we likely won't need major depot expansions at Brunswick / Malvern / Glenhuntly / Camberwell, and to be fair, 25m+ long trams would be overkill for a lot of routes.

Hopefully the government will put in another small order for 20-odd E class trams, so that a couple more busy routes like the 59 and 75 can get bigger trams.
steve195

59, 75 and 109 could all do with E class sized trams. If the next gen trams end up on these routes that will be a failed program IMO.

If the new class only end up on A and Z routes then I will accept that is an improvement, but the risk is ending up with a fleet of new trams that will be undersized within 10 years, like the C1 and D1.

Way too many trips in overcrowded D1 class on St. Kilda Road and C1 on Victoria Parade in my lifetime. They all should have been D2 length.
  steve195 Train Controller

Do we definitely know the new trams will be shorter than the E class at only 22 meters as some people have said in this and other threads?

It seems a real backwards step to me especially if these new trams end up on current B class routes like the 59.
The F class for now will be replacing the A and Z class trams, not the Bs. So it will be a capacity increase overall. I assume that having the F class be the same length as the Bs means we likely won't need major depot expansions at Brunswick / Malvern / Glenhuntly / Camberwell, and to be fair, 25m+ long trams would be overkill for a lot of routes.

Hopefully the government will put in another small order for 20-odd E class trams, so that a couple more busy routes like the 59 and 75 can get bigger trams.

59, 75 and 109 could all do with E class sized trams. If the next gen trams end up on these routes that will be a failed program IMO.

If the new class only end up on A and Z routes then I will accept that is an improvement, but the risk is ending up with a fleet of new trams that will be undersized within 10 years, like the C1 and D1.

Way too many trips in overcrowded D1 class on St. Kilda Road and C1 on Victoria Parade in my lifetime. They all should have been D2 length.
Mr. Lane
Agree, there will be no argument from me that the D1 class aren't horrible. To be honest, I'd rather see the C1 and D1 retired before the Bs - but of course that will never happen.

We have 100 Es to cover the 11, 86, 96, and soon part of the 58. The original plan was to buy 150 of them, which should be enough to add a couple more routes to that list. If we go straight into buying F class without adding more Es, then we will be in trouble on the busier routes. Replacing every A and Z with an F would be a pretty decent boost to capacity on St Kilda Rd, and I would hope that we aren't going to just end up cascading the Bs by replacing them with Fs in order to manage existing depot space rather than increase capacity meaningfully.
  Chrono Detector Assistant Commissioner

Location: Tram 57/59
Just hope the next generation trams will have the same size as a B2, or slightly bigger. Hopefully nothing like the D1's because it is smaller than a B2 which is laughable not to mention the smaller amount of seats and it's strange configuration which proved quite unpopular with commuters.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Do we definitely know the new trams will be shorter than the E class at only 22 meters as some people have said in this and other threads?

It seems a real backwards step to me especially if these new trams end up on current B class routes like the 59.
The F class for now will be replacing the A and Z class trams, not the Bs. So it will be a capacity increase overall. I assume that having the F class be the same length as the Bs means we likely won't need major depot expansions at Brunswick / Malvern / Glenhuntly / Camberwell, and to be fair, 25m+ long trams would be overkill for a lot of routes.

Hopefully the government will put in another small order for 20-odd E class trams, so that a couple more busy routes like the 59 and 75 can get bigger trams.

59, 75 and 109 could all do with E class sized trams. If the next gen trams end up on these routes that will be a failed program IMO.

If the new class only end up on A and Z routes then I will accept that is an improvement, but the risk is ending up with a fleet of new trams that will be undersized within 10 years, like the C1 and D1.

Way too many trips in overcrowded D1 class on St. Kilda Road and C1 on Victoria Parade in my lifetime. They all should have been D2 length.
Mr. Lane
The Metro tunnel might help with the crowding issues on St. Kilda Road, which should the D1s to remain there.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, doyle, msilsby, Power_Guy

Display from: