Clay Lucas
September 27, 2010 - 1:46PM
Fifty new low-floor trams for Melbourne will be largely built in Dandenong, Public Transport Minister Martin Pakula said this afternoon.

The $1 billion contract to built the trams has been given to Bombardier, a Canadian owned firm that has promised to build 51 per cent of the trams completely in Melbourne.

The decision to weight the trams' manufacture locally follows the awarding of a $380 million contract for 18 new trains in 2007 to French firm Alstom, which is making them completely in Europe.

A subsequent order for 20 more trains will see them partly assembled in Victoria.

That decision provoked such a backlash from the manufacturing industry in Victoria that the government has this time awarded the contract to the firm that promised to manufacture most of the new trams in Australia.

Mr Pakula said construction of the 50 new trams would create more than 500 jobs in and around Dandenong.

"This is great news for jobs, and it's great news for the Victorian manufacturing industry," Mr Pakula said.

The contract will include the manufacture of the body shell as well as the assembly of the trams in Dandenong.

Each of the low-floor trams will be able to carry 210 passengers and will be 33 metres long.

Guess that means we'll be stuck with those yellow disasters seen in Adelaide.

Different design I would have thought - Adelaide doesn't have 100% low floor trams. Pretty sure Melbourne will.

*** WAIT TIL MEDIA WORKS THIS OUT - WOW MIKI YET AGAIN *****

Now, I have done the following calculations in my calculator

1b / 50 trams = $20m each tram

380m / 18 6-car-trains = $21.11111111 m per 6 car train

For one tram, we are paying the same as the price for whole 6 car train.

One single V/locity DMU, built at the same plant costs between $3M and $4M each.

One whole 3 car V/locity is quoted at $15M each, that is for a whole 3 car train, AND built at the same factory.

Most other cities would only pay $3M, or perhaps $5M per tram.

Why are we paying $20m for one single tram?

Revenue, could you please tell us will Bombardier be getting $20 per tram? or is a large slice going into other things, such as maintenance for the trams over say 30 years?

tranzitjim - at least half of that one billion dollars is going into extra stabling facilities. That's the reason we're only getting 50 new trams, rather than the full 100 originally promised.

Different design I would have thought - Adelaide doesn't have 100% low floor trams. Pretty sure Melbourne will.

It really does look like it is a flexity classic, like what Adelaide has of which are only 70% low floor.

There are no doors near the front of this tram. If you look how far back the first door is located, it is behind the first bogie, and each section is way too long to be a Flexity outlook. Only the Flexity-Outlook are 100% low floor.

On a side note, Adelaides Citidis trams are 100% low floor.

In my mind, the Flexity-Classic should be a great idea for routes like Vermont South and Bundoora, should you choose to run them express to Warragul road or Boulderwood pde respectively.

Otheriwse, they could only be operable where you have 100% all platform stops such as route #96.

tranzitjim - at least half of that one billion dollars is going into extra stabling facilities. That's the reason we're only getting 50 new trams, rather than the full 100 originally promised.

Thanks for that SteamtoStay.

How much of that would be solely for the trams, and how much is for the Preston depot project?

I'm not involved in this area of DOT but my understanding is that this includes the trams, maintenance, a new depot, etc...  People often forget that it is the maintenance and operations that costs more. Myki is a good example - the billion dollar figure thrown around includes more than a decade of operations as well. You always need to look at the long term costs of these procurements.

They will be based on the flexity 2 that is currently in service in Blackpool, UK. Runs at 600 volts DC comfortably.

A good outcome for all. I expect that at some point during the next couple of months it will be announced that more than 50 are being ordered. (FYI, the Preston depot is to have stabling for 160 of these trams).

The fact that they are being constructed in Melbourne will make it very politically easy to justify new trams, and was a very wise move by bombardier. It will also allow a possible 'trailing' order of ten or twenty trams a year to keep the manufacturing plant open, something that Yarra trams needs.

Scary to see, for a change, a sensible decision being made!

Does anyone know if some of the Z-Class trams will be scrapped when these fifty new trams arrive?
I've had a quick look through VTP and MOTC and didn't notice anything about them.

Well the Herald-Sun are on to the Government, but their final figure isn't what I've read elsewhere.

UPDATE 4.37pm: THE Government is spending just $300 million on new trams for Melbourne, not the $807 million touted in publicity.

Earlier today, the Brumby Government was trumpeting the $807.6 million in a press release issued earlier today to announce a deal to buy 50 new trams.

But a spokesman for Public Transport Minister Martin Pakula revealed today that the $500 million would actually be spent on related costs, including the new Preston tram depot, where the new vehicles will be kept.

Clarification of the actual cost of trams by the State Government means taxpayers are paying about $6 million each per vehicle.

The Toronto Transit Commission said it bought 204 Bombardier trams for C$1 billion ($1.02 billion), or about $5 million each.

Today, the Brumby Government announced a deal with the same company to buy their trams, initially prompting transport critics to say Victoria had been "taken for a ride".

Mr Pakula said the Bombadier deal "presented the state with the best value for money offer."

The trams will be built by Bombardier - the same company behind the modern V/Line trains - at their Dandenong factory.

The contract includes an option to buy a further 50 trams on top of the original order.

More than 500 jobs will be created by the deal and the first of the order will begin service in 2012.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/brumby-government-unveils-800m-plan-to-build-50-new-trams/story-e6frf7kx-1225929995053

First it says mostly.
Then it says 51%
Then it says manufacture of the body and assembly of foreign made parts.
Hrm.
Anyway they need to getting a lot more than 50, they need to expand the fleet as well as think about when the Z and A and B need to be retired. Also in the long run getting short production runs of numerous different models can't be very efficient, theres the economy of scale of building a large amount as well as the doubling up on supplies and equipment and personal and so for maintenance and repairs and etc for numerous different models.

Shouldn't this be in the trams forum incidentally?

That is the plan, with the Z1's and Z2's to be returned to 'retired' status.

As always, the only problem with this plan is the execution. The first 5 to be delivered in 2012 will be just the right number to replace the 5 Bumble Bee trams, returning home next year. 5 will be delivered in 2013, then ten per year until the order is fulfilled. As such, it will be 2015-ish before there is sufficient rolling stock to be able to start retiring trams.

This is why I laugh every time someone talks about getting rid of the W class and replacing them. Replace the with What?

Only an order for 100 trams to be delivered over the same time frame would allow that to happen. 160 5 car trams (The capacity of the new Preston Depot) would allow the retirement of all Z and W class trams, as well as allow service improvements to a number of routes currently under serviced.


As for Toronto getting the trams cheaper, I am sure there are some economies of scale there! Plus, being a Canadian company, there was probably some pride involved in getting the contract - It would be embarrassing to have not got it! Another factor would have been the start up costs - they would be fixed, and a larger number of trams would have allowed this cost to be spread over more trams, thus helping to keep the costs down.

Is the existing network going to need to be modified to accept the new trams? If so that's bad news.

One of those numerous transport planning studies they were issuing a few years ago was talking about ordering 400 new trams.

The decision to weight the trams' manufacture locally follows the awarding of a $380 million contract for 18 new trains in 2007 to French firm Alstom, which is making them completely in Europe.

Wouldn't it have been better the other way round because, we could have made perfectly good trains here and if so, we could have weighted trams manufacture completely in Europe and get better on street trams.

It really does look like it is a flexity classic, like what Adelaide has of which are only 70% low floor.

There are no doors near the front of this tram. If you look how far back the first door is located, it is behind the first bogie, and each section is way too long to be a Flexity outlook. Only the Flexity-Outlook are 100% low floor.

If you're right (and it looks it from the image) what a cop-out, just because Bombardier can't produce a 100% low floor with pivoting bogies. There is a clear passenger preference in new light rail systems for 100% low floor. All this twisting around to meet the limitations of suppliers is amazing.

And you're right myrtone, as I said in the other thread (why are there two parallel threads on this?), the trams should be made in Europe. Leave Australia to do what it can do better (basic free trade theory).

"Proudly 50.3% made in Australia!"

It really does look like it is a flexity classic, like what Adelaide has of which are only 70% low floor.

There are no doors near the front of this tram. If you look how far back the first door is located, it is behind the first bogie, and each section is way too long to be a Flexity outlook. Only the Flexity-Outlook are 100% low floor.

If you're right (and it looks it from the image) what a cop-out, just because Bombardier can't produce a 100% low floor with pivoting bogies. There is a clear passenger preference in new light rail systems for 100% low floor. All this twisting around to meet the limitations of suppliers is amazing.

They are the Flexity2, which is an improved Flexity Classic.  They are 100% low floor- albeit using ramps to get to the higher part of the floor over the motor bogies rather than the step of the Classic. There is a plan of the Blackpool version on Bombardiers website for further reference.
Sim.

So we are the second city after Blackpool to get the Flexity 2. While the images show only a three section tram, my understanding is that they are five sections. Oh, no, more fixed bogie tram after we have already have had a bad experience. We could have had our trains built locally, with up to something like 90% local content, and the same issues would not have arisen. The trains would be high floor, suited the full height platform loading and have pivoting bogies no matter where they are made or who supplied them.

They are 100% low floor- albeit using ramps to get to the higher part of the floor over the motor bogies rather than the step of the Classic. There is a plan of the Blackpool version on Bombardiers website for further reference.

The Skoda ForCity, judging from interior shot, is actually like this too, the articulation floor goes up to 450mm.

It's really not a Flexity 2, that is 5 sections, has different door arrangements, and different bogie layout. This has one bogie per outer section, and two bogies on the middle section, like the flexity classic in Adelaide. It has separate external driver's doors, like Adelaide's (and the Ws). But the doors are arranged differently, and there are more seats, and it is longer (and wider) than Adelaide's.
From the vid it has 76 seats, as many as a B2, but longer, and with more standing room.

I like it

I also really like the lights, with LEDs above the headlights, which have a similar style to the Vlocities. Makes them look like they are from the same family

*** WAIT TIL MEDIA WORKS THIS OUT - WOW MIKI YET AGAIN *****

Now, I have done the following calculations in my calculator

1b / 50 trams = $20m each tram

380m / 18 6-car-trains = $21.11111111 m per 6 car train

For one tram, we are paying the same as the price for whole 6 car train.

One single V/locity DMU, built at the same plant costs between $3M and $4M each.

One whole 3 car V/locity is quoted at $15M each, that is for a whole 3 car train, AND built at the same factory.

Most other cities would only pay $3M, or perhaps $5M per tram.

Why are we paying $20m for one single tram?

Revenue, could you please tell us will Bombardier be getting $20 per tram? or is a large slice going into other things, such as maintenance for the trams over say 30 years?

It would be Interesting to know what % of the total cost actually would be spent on building the new trams and what % of the total cost gets chewed up by Government and Private Company Bureaucrats.

I'm working on a large Government project at the moment and the Government and Private Company Bureaucracy Is a joke.

It's like office's full of bureaucrats are employed to do nothing but to put a spanner In the works and find new ways how to make everyone's job harder and new way on how to wast taxpayers money.

They are the Flexity2, which is an improved Flexity Classic.  They are 100% low floor- albeit using ramps to get to the higher part of the floor over the motor bogies rather than the step of the Classic. There is a plan of the Blackpool version on Bombardiers website for further reference.
Sim.

Thanks themetptc. I couldn't find anything specifically identified as Blackpool but I did find a cross-section that shows a fair floor height difference between the bogie and non bogie sections (and up and down windows like the Skoda 14T). There are also plinths (involving steps) over the fixed bogies with high-mounted seats on them. I remember a person posting on a forum who forgot the change of height and fell off the plinth and against a stanchion cracking some ribs. All in all a pretty fudged definition of 100% low floor!

And there's those fixed bogies forcing the body sections to track the curves..... Toronto will test that one; as they found in Prague, fixed bogies destroy the track in tightly profiled legacy systems.

It's really not a Flexity 2, that is 5 sections, has different door arrangements, and different bogie layout. This has one bogie per outer section, and two bogies on the middle section, like the flexity classic in Adelaide. It has separate external driver's doors, like Adelaide's (and the Ws). But the doors are arranged differently, and there are more seats, and it is longer (and wider) than Adelaide's.

That's how it might appear in the illustrations, but is what we see what we get?

These look like very similar to what they have in Adelaide. After recently visiting Adelaide to inspect the Flexity and Citadis they have.

The flexity's are awful. They feel boxy and closed in. They have much higher dwell times compared to the Citadis, which have a decent amount of standing room balanced with seating, The Adelaide Citadis barely have any standing room. They take forever to get in and out of due to the placement of the doors.

I for one am very dissapointed the DoT didn't go for something which has proven success in Melbourne.

I'm sure Alstom would have been more than happy to provide a licence to manufacture some of them locally, as with the X'trapolis.

You'd think the DoT would be able to do something right but I guess not.

The trams we are getting here in Melbourne are the Flexity 2, not the flexity. They will be a bi-directional 33 meter long, 3 bogie (2 driving, one trailing),  5 car tram, irrespective of what the images say (FYI, a 33 meter tram of only 3 sections wouldn't fit around many of our curves!).

They will be very similar to the Blackpool 5 car flexity 2's which are the same length at 33 meters long, but I would imagine it will have upgraded AC amongst a few other 'localisation's' which is partly responsible for the higher sticker price.

A few of these 'localisation's' are;
- Separate drivers access door, allowing the driver to exit the cab without having to pass through the passenger compartment. Useful when having to get out and change the points in the middle of the intersection! (I am not sure if this  means that the only doors into the passenger compartment are the middle double doors or not, though)
- A window in the drivers cab which can be opened to the outside.
- Separate AC for the drivers cab.

As for the choice of the flexity 2 being a mistake I think the majority of people will be surprised at just how good they are. I am sure that while the Citadis are a fantastic tram, the Flexity 2 is just as good, if not better for our tight and rough network.

As for Alstom licensing the Citadis design to be manufactured locally, it wasn't going to happen. There would have been some 'assembly' (However no one was sure where, as historically all work on Citadis has been done at Preston, site of the new 'uber-despot'), but they weren't prepared to take the risk that Bombardier were prepared to take in constructing locally. Bombardier did have a considerable leg up in this regards, however, already having local operations (at Dandenong), and I am sure they are hoping for follow on orders, not just from Yarra Trams.

Now we just have to wait for the mock-up to arrive so we can all poke our noses in and annoy staff with stupid and repetitive questions!


For a fact sheet on the Blackpool Flexity 2 go to https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B3jGaGqMEi02MzE1NDg1ZjMtNzg1My00ZjMwLTliM2EtNzNkZmQzN2IxYjJh&hl=en&authkey=CPG6vpIH


Peace out.