Testing of the first tram in George Street for 61 years commenced last evening.

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/a-fantastic-milestone-as-first-tram-in-60-years-rolls-along-george-street

They then took a single car through the new points/curve at George and Hay and took it out to the new Liliyfield maintenance centre.
The night Central to Star City service had been replaced by buses for the occasion.

This made it the first time a Citadis 305 had been to the new facility built especially for them. I assume the car will stay there for several days while they check everything fits properly.

X05 and not 305 or X02 matthew

X05 and not 305 or X02 matthew

X05 is the family. The model is 305.

The X gets replaced by the number of bogies. Standard Alstom model numbering system.

Sydney has 5 section 3 bogie trams, hence they are model 305.

The 05 replaces the 02 in the Alstom catalogue.

Cool. Can we ride the tram now, please?

Err not at the moment as the there appear to be some power issues

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/sydney-light-rail-breakdown-causes-lunchtime-chaos-in-cbd

Err not at the moment as the there appear to be some power issues

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/sydney-light-rail-breakdown-causes-lunchtime-chaos-in-cbd

They have had 2 APS power system failures that have stranded trams across the middle of intersections.
The trams are supposed to have traction batteries so they can limp away and not block the road, but it appears they are not commissioned yet.

Rumoured target opening date is the 7-8th of December - but no official announcement yet.

Rumoured target opening date is the 7-8th of December - but no official announcement yet.

IIRC, that would be exactly 120 years since the first time that electric trams ran on George St. It's a good target date so get those batteries commissioned! It's surprising that they did not do that early in the program.

Also rumored is that there will be a C-class tram on static display at Circular Quay so the public can be impressed by how much trams have progressed since the old days. It would be a brave politician who would display a coupled pair of O or P-class cars with their 160 seats and ample standing room. That comparison would be less impressive. (Yes I know that the old trams could not carry wheelchairs, and without opal cards they were dangerous for conductors)

Rumoured target opening date is the 7-8th of December - but no official announcement yet.

IIRC, that would be exactly 120 years since the first time that electric trams ran on George St. It's a good target date so get those batteries commissioned! It's surprising that they did not do that early in the program.

Also rumored is that there will be a C-class tram on static display at Circular Quay so the public can be impressed by how much trams have progressed since the old days. It would be a brave politician who would display a coupled pair of O or P-class cars with their 160 seats and ample standing room. That comparison would be less impressive. (Yes I know that the old trams could not carry wheelchairs, and without opal cards they were dangerous for conductors)

And they were not air conditioned. There is no valid comparison.

Also rumored is that there will be a C-class tram on static display at Circular Quay so the public can be impressed by how much trams have progressed since the old days. It would be a brave politician who would display a coupled pair of O or P-class cars with their 160 seats and ample standing room. That comparison would be less impressive. (Yes I know that the old trams could not carry wheelchairs, and without opal cards they were dangerous for conductors)

We took a pile of Transdev people for a ride on a coupled O car set a couple of weeks back. They are certainly aware Sydney has a history with coupled sets. (They also got rides on a C, F, LP, P, R and R1). The C29 then spent some time parked alongside 2107 - the old and small next to the modern and large.

Note however you can't load an O or P up to their historical rated capacity with 'modern' sized people. We tried that once. It didn't go well. (Complaints about being squeezed in). People are a bit, let's say, 'rounder' these days.

I'm not sure what sort of accessibility requirement NSW has but I'm under impression that it's less strict than Victoria.  I mean, Hawkesbury River railway station doesn't have wheel chair access to date.  With the loading stress we already face on the IWLR capacity should really be prioritised over accessibility when choosing light rail vehicle types.  (Step entrance vehicles generally have higher capacity both seated and standing)

I'm not sure what sort of accessibility requirement NSW has but I'm under impression that it's less strict than Victoria.  I mean, Hawkesbury River railway station doesn't have wheel chair access to date.  With the loading stress we already face on the IWLR capacity should really be prioritised over accessibility when choosing light rail vehicle types.  (Step entrance vehicles generally have higher capacity both seated and standing)

'Grandfather clause' as they are known.

New construction HAS to comply with the rules in force at that time. However, you do not have to rush out and spend money(that probably doesn't exist) on upgrading existing infrastructure as the standards evolve.

TfNSW messed up and has different platform track centres between the IWLR and the CESLR. One side effect is the Citadis are slightly narrower than the original Variotrams the SLR was built for. So the gap between the door and the platform is slightly too large when the Citadis run on the western line. (There are other compatibility issues too) This apparently does not comply with CURRENT accessibility rules. As the rollingstock is new, it doesn't get the benefit of grandfathering. TfNSW could apply for an exemption, but...

Look what happened in Queensland with their new trains - there was some sort of design stuff up and the new trains don't comply. QR applied for an exception because they are desperately short of rolling stock and the problem will take some time to fix. Disability advocates challenged and won against the exception being granted.

I can see a future in Melbourne where the trams run up against the hard deadline for 100% accessibility but the government will not allocate money for more new rollingstock and high floor trams get replaced by low floor buses on some routes.

Assuming you have unlimited fund to keep adding low floor trams to the line, you will come to a point at which the line will reach the minimum permissible headway of 90 seconds.  Even the 90 second is theoretical.  If you include so many services in the graph, trams will be stopping between stops all the time and it would take ages even to get out of Hay St.  The shortest SCHEDULED headway on a CBTC line that I know of, is metro line 9 in Shanghai, 115 seconds.  What if the demand overflows even with that sort of frequency?
    The design of San Diego trolley (the American way of saying tram) is worth considering, by coupling low floor tram(s) with a high floor tram.  If you want a seat, get on the high floor module.  If you want an easier boarding and alighting process, get on the low floor module(s).

    The design of San Diego trolley (the American way of saying tram) is worth considering, by coupling low floor tram(s) with a high floor tram.  If you want a seat, get on the high floor module.  If you want an easier boarding and alighting process, get on the low floor module(s).

This sort of thing is no longer considered acceptable. As a method of working towards full accessibility, it's fine, but there is no way buying new high floor trams to couple to low floor trams to increase capacity on a route would be allowed now.
San Diego started with a 'high floor' fleet and coupling a low floor 2nd unit was considered an acceptable compromise to working towards low entry.

Besides unless you can score a sweet deal on some (compatible!) 2nd hand high floor stock, the new high floors would probably cost more than new low floors due to being a 'custom' build. The industry is firmly on the 100% low floor camp now.

Really the IWLR needs to start planning to go to 60m coupled sets. Don't hold your breath. It's taken nearly 4 years to approve the purchase of 4 new trams to increase capacity. (Note approved - not ordered!)  So 4 years to decide what to do. 4-5 years planning platform lengthening. 2 years of design changes after 'public comment'. Then 5 years to implement. Then 'oops we forgot to order more trams'.  2 years to order more trams. 2 years waiting for them to arrive as the manufacturer has a backlog.

Unless it's a developer lobbying for a 'state significance' DA so they can override local council and other NIMBY objections, things to not move fast.

(Step entrance vehicles generally have higher capacity both seated and standing)

Not true. In a low floor vehicle passengers can stand right up to the doors if necessary. With stairwells they don't or shouldn't stand in the stairwells for safety reasons, like inward opening doors. With seating that is a highly variable client-specified factor that you can't generalise about.

In low floor vehicles traction equipments pertrude into the saloon, which are bigger than stepwells.  (Some drivers say the motors are on the roof, but in that context the term "motor" refers to electric control devices) The longest tram in Australia that I find online is the Gold Coast light rail vehicles, 49 metres with 89 seats.  Imagine if the original proposal of B class coupling went ahead that would be 148 seats for a track occupancy of 47.26 metres.
    IMO since Sydney doesn't have street level loading, you can have high floor trams with high platforms so that you'll get both capacity and accessibility, or you can have a raised area on the platform that level with one door, with the remaining doors on low area of platform with steps so as to facilitate street level emergency evacuation.

In low floor vehicles traction equipments pertrude into the saloon, which are bigger than stepwells.  

This may have been true of earlier designs and some at the 'cheaper' end of the market (CAF Urbos) still lose seats of the motor bogies, but most other vendors have solved this with current designs.

The 1997 built Sydney Variotram is a true 100% low floor. There are no 'intrusions' into the cabin for 'traction'. There are seats over the motor boxes. There is some space lost to equipment - there is a 19" track behind the driver at each end. That equipment on later models is on the roof with everything else.

The Citadis 305s for Sydney have a step to seats over the motor bogies - but that isn't for the motor - it's for the suspension springs There are no other 'intrusions' into the cabin, they don't lose 4 seats per motor bogie like the Combino or Urbos cars do.

But even on a 'compromised' design like the Urbos 100 or the Combino, the loss factor due to equipment protruding into the cab would be way less than that lost to stairwells - at least not if the car had a decent number of doors. A single ender with only 2 doors MIGHT be able to make that claim, but a modern multi-door artic - nope.
More space can be lost to doing things like specifying the wrong doors (Ansaldobreda Sirio with bus style doors that swing into the car, I do not know what they are called, only that riding a Napoli Siro you careful where you stood near the doors or you would get hit by them as they opened!)

Yes, the Melbourne built Variotrams are really good.  I fully agree with Michael at STM that Urbos are sh1t.  When I was walking to Central Station for the airport train just before 5:00 AM I saw an Urbo turning right onto the ramp leading to Central Station and it was doing it so slowly.  And its electronic gongs are disgusting.

They seem like during the latest tests, everything is set up. A 10 News Report a few days ago says that it will be open by December. They also talked about being safe near tramways, as soon they could cause deaths....

They seem like during the latest tests, everything is set up. A 10 News Report a few days ago says that it will be open by December. They also talked about being safe near tramways, as soon they could cause deaths....

Mobile phone zombies.

Also, patrons of the pubs and clubs on George Street (and to a lesser extent Devonshire) spill out onto the road totally sloshed, particularly on Friday and Saturday.

They seem like during the latest tests, everything is set up. A 10 News Report a few days ago says that it will be open by December. They also talked about being safe near tramways, as soon they could cause deaths....

Mobile phone zombies.

Also, patrons of the pubs and clubs on George Street (and to a lesser extent Devonshire) spill out onto the road totally sloshed, particularly on Friday and Saturday.

Should be no worse than when there were cars

They seem like during the latest tests, everything is set up. A 10 News Report a few days ago says that it will be open by December. They also talked about being safe near tramways, as soon they could cause deaths....

Randwick only branch on opening, Kingston is still a few months away.

Melbourne has coped for 150 years mingling pedestrians and trams.

Sydney will be fine, hopefully the darwin awards are limited.

Melbourne has coped for 150 years mingling pedestrians and trams.

Sydney will be fine, hopefully the darwin awards are limited.

Agree, its new for Sydney, well semi new they have had street running trams now for around 20 years, so of course all the Drama Queens are out vying for their Logie award on their doom and gloom predictions, remember the 5 years of "qualified" Metro commentary.

For a pedestrian to collide with a tram in Melbourne h/she has to cross the motor vehicle lane(s) first, except in Bourke St. Mall and perhaps in Royal Park.  In Sydney whenever they add a modern tram line to a road they remove general motor traffic and effectively convert it to the Bourke St. Mall style, so I suppose there is a higher likelihood that pedestrians neglect the presence of an approaching tram causing conflicting movement.