7 months worth of delay is what I would consider enough to have gone back to the drawing board. Don't forget, this is a mob (Bombarider) that are no stranger to trams and light rail vehicles. For them to delay the prototype by 7 months due to 'technical issues' to me indicates that there were some pretty considerable issues to be dealt with. 

Sure, they tried to sell it off as 'problems due to the complexity of the project', but 7 months? A few forum posts had talked about the bogie arrangement as being very different. I mean, three sections where one of the sections has 2 bogies? 

25 meter radius is great, but what is it doing to the track profile?

No they're locked into the present design. I think the issues relate to assembly and local suppliers.

Melbourne's curve radii are down to about 16 m I believe and the union asked for rotating bogies which that Flexity Classic type platform has.

I know not much has been said about the new E class trams in recent months, but I've been keeping an eye on the (apparent) goings on at the Bombadier site in Dandenong when I travel past there twice a week on the Cranbourne line.  Despite appearances of the site being abandoned 90% of the time, there has been some activity in recent weeks that point to a tram being tested soon.  Last year I noticed that sleepers had been replaced on the tramway test track that is located on the factory site - the track has been truncated into one balloon loop and lead into a building instead of the two balloon loops that were once there.  In the past two weeks the sagging overhead has been repaired and it's quite noticeable that all the overhead wire has been replaced.  I doubt that I'll ever see a tram on the track given the times that I travel past the factory but it's a good sign that something is happening.

Any more news about these trams? It seems to be dragging on now...

Any more news about these trams? It seems to be dragging on now...

On Vicsig I saw a picture of one in testing.

Any more news about these trams? It seems to be dragging on now...

The first batch is in build with at least one apparently ready to roll and under test.  No word (at least officially) as yet on likely delivery date to Preston Workshops nor the fleet numbering to be used although there have been whispers on the grapevine that any of the 32xx, 36xx, 38xx or 40xx series will be employed.  3xxx refers to the number of modules and matches the other 3-module trams where the 2xxx and 5xxx series are in use for twin-car and 5-module trams respectively.  As such my money is on a series within the 3xxx range. There are no 4-module trams with YT and as such the 4xxx series remains vacant.

The first batch is in build with at least one apparently ready to roll and under test.  No word (at least officially) as yet on likely delivery date to Preston Workshops nor the fleet numbering to be used although there have been whispers on the grapevine that any of the 32xx, 36xx, 38xx or 40xx series will be employed.  3xxx refers to the number of modules and matches the other 3-module trams where the 2xxx and 5xxx series are in use for twin-car and 5-module trams respectively.  As such my money is on a series within the 3xxx range. There are no 4-module trams with YT and as such the 4xxx series remains vacant.

Good to hear. Seems like a lot has changed since I last visited this thread. I was under the impression they were 4 module trams...but my memory failed me over the last year or so: clearly they are 3 module. They do seem to have gained a door though. Some of the earlier renders of a 3 module tram showed a 2+1+1 door arrangement, but they have actually built them at 2+1+2, which is a good thing. With from the various pics around (and the little that I know) these trams could be a winner for a long term standard design.

In terms of where these trams are going to run there seems to be sketchy information, other than the fact that the 96 will get them first. I ride my bike down by Southbank Depot occasionally and they certainly have made a stack of extra space down there. I have over the last year or so seen D2's on the 109 and 112 in revenue service...a sign of things to come? C1's occasionally also end up on the 112 in revenue service.

I remember talk of these trams allowing the last non City Circle W's to be retired (not that I see many anyway...only the 30 still seems to get Ws from what I can see). Is this still the plan? Or will we be losing some of the Z1/Z2's from St.Kilda Road with Es bumping out D2s bumping out B2s?

I am not up with what is at what depot these days but I would think that 50 of these E class trams should be able to cover the 96 and 19 if the Bumblebees are staying around on the 96. Ideally the Es would push out the Z3s from Brunswick allowing route 1 to go completely B class and route 8 significantly more B class (I assume route 8 is still shared with Malvern?), but is there the room at Brunswick? The D2s could then go somewhere else...hopefully to free up B2s for the 112, where the As really are not cutting it.

I would also be hoping that the 96 actually gets platform stops up its entire north section...it is really about time that it did. Platforms for the 19 though...more complex. What to do up Sydney Road? Northcote Town Hall style platform design?

I'm really not sure what YT has in store for the arrival of the E-class but based on previous new deliveries we can expect a fairly extensive reshuffle of rolling stock.

The 96 really needs the 5-module trams of classes C2 and D2 so a new 3-module class may not offer adequate capacity.  It was my understanding at one time that these new trams would release D2-class trams for the very busy 19 but from where?  There wouldn't be enough for the entire service even if every one of them transferred to Brunswick.

There is also, as I understand it, a capacity issue at Brunswick if 5-module trams were to be drafted in and there is no convenient alternative for operation of the 19.  There are equally few alternatives for the 1 and 8 currently Brunswick and Brunswick / Malvern respectively.  Part of the Preston Workshops site is to become an active depot.  That is intended to give a boost to capacity at East Preston with larger trams going onto the 86 (perhaps the E-class) and ousting the 112 allocation to the Workshops site.  

I can see that a general reshuffle might result in a mix of B2 and E-lass tams on the 19 and the E-class taking over the entire 86 as deliveries progress.  Remember also there is an option for up to 100 more of these over and above the initial 50 in build.  If capacity can be made at Brunswick then the entire 19 allocation may become E-class.  Ousted B2 class cars could be used on the 1, 8 and ideally some Glen Huntly runs as well; poor Glen Huntly seems to get nothing new under the sun and also has by far the fewest air-conditioned cars of any depot.  

Fleet strength may be boosted somewhat by the new deliveries but it would also be reasonable to assume a further inroad will occur into the Z-class fleet and not necessarily confined to the remaining Z1 cars.  The Z3 fleet is getting long in the tooth and are seen as old and uncomfortable trams by some users.

Unlike the C-class which were ordered as part of a specific total route upgrade program for the 109 (though they stray daily onto other runs now) and the C2-class which were leased then acquired specifically for the 96 and may not run on other routes the more recent deliveries of D-class trams haven't been put on a single route and have always been a shared allocation to give a mix of modern and older trams on Malvern routes, now also on the 96 and sometimes 112 as well in the case of those transferred to Southbank.

We may therefore see the E-class also phased in across several routes (possibly all out of one depot to begin with) rather than take over one complete route.

Platform stops on Sydney Road?  That's another matter altogether.  I know some traders are concerned that street parking may be lost to accommodate kerb-side stops as was proposed for Bridge Road and Victoria Street.  It's hard to see how else it could be done in many places as the road width simply doesn't exist north of Parkville.

The 96 really needs the 5-module trams of classes C2 and D2 so a new 3-module class may not offer adequate capacity.  It was my understanding at one time that these new trams would release D2-class trams for the very busy 19 but from where?  There wouldn't be enough for the entire service even if every one of them transferred to Brunswick.

The Es are the same length as the C2 trams and have a carrying capacity of 210 passengers, more than any tram on the network at present.

The plan is for 20 or so Es to be based at Southbank for service on the 96 with the Bumblebees; which will result in the D2s to be shifted to Brunswick for service on Route 19. The Z3s which will be displaced will end up at Malvern to allow the Z1/2s to be taken out of service.

The next batch of Es will see service on Route 86, which will see the B2s primarily on that route shifted over to the 112. The As based out of East Preston will move to Glenhuntly.

There was a fleet cascade brochure issued out to staff at the depots last year when the Es were due to arrive which outlined the above.

^^^

Read the brochures before you make assumptions. I rather think that YT would have an understanding of the current fleets short-comings and as such where to allocate trams...

In other news, would anyone have any details in regards to the testing of the current E in Dandenong? Any idea when it might be scooting about on the track so I could take some
photographs?

Regards, Elliot

A couple of years ago Yarra Trams made a presentation at the Melbourne Transport Forum, which included plans for a tram cascade. If that is still the plan Es will run on 96, displacing D2s for 19, and when numbers get large enough start operating on 112. (power point here - slide 27) There are photos of the E on vicsig here and here

Liam.

EDIT: The brochure Westernport referred to can be found on Trams Down Under.

I would also be hoping that the 96 actually gets platform stops up its entire north section...it is really about time that it did. Platforms for the 19 though...more complex. What to do up Sydney Road? Northcote Town Hall style platform design?

Platform stops on Sydney Road? That's another matter altogether. I know some traders are concerned that street parking may be lost to accommodate kerb-side stops as was proposed for Bridge Road and Victoria Street. It's hard to see how else it could be done in many places as the road width simply doesn't exist north of Parkville.

That's the reason why I hope that the new trams will have reliable power operated ramps for street level stops. Do we really need better tram stops or better (low floor) trams? I asked on vicsig and go no responses. Mind you stairclimbing is possible in a manual wheelchair (If you've ever perofrmed a wheelie you'll understand how that's done), so not all wheelchair users really need the ramps. If trams had height adjustable (secondary) suspension like the kneeling mechanisms on low floor buses, the step height at such stops would be much lower. Really, I don't prefer either option universally, and even long before low floor trams, I would have had no issue with providing platforms on researved track stops, note that the tram stop immediately between Parkville and Brunswick, like the SLR stop at central station in Sydney, is already at kerb height, and like a few others, was already at kerb height long before low floor trams.

All stops in Melbourne will be level entry to comply with DDA by 2032, PTV have info here and here about this. As part of the E class 'tram procurement program' route 96 will be made completely level access, this is meant to happen within the next few years. I don't know of any plans for route 19, but the upcoming relay in Elizabeth St should be followed by platform stops.

Liam.

All stops in Melbourne will be level entry to comply with DDA by 2032, PTV have info here and here about this. As part of the E class 'tram procurement program' route 96 will be made completely level access, this is meant to happen within the next few years. I don't know of any plans for route 19, but the upcoming relay in Elizabeth St should be followed by platform stops.

Liam.

Vienna stops (drive-over, a couple in Melbourne already I believe) solve all the issues where normal platforms can't be put it.

Vienna stops (drive-over, a couple in Melbourne already I believe) solve all the issues where normal platforms can't be put it.

These types of level boarding stops are in use in quite a few locations, PTV call them 'Easy Access Stops'.

Liam.

Vienna stops (drive-over, a couple in Melbourne already I believe) solve all the issues where normal platforms can't be put it.

Vienna stops are only at kerb height, did they have any of them before they even thought of ordering low floor trams? We had a few "plaform" stops here in Melborune long before the low floor tram, examples incude the those on the St Kilda and Port Mebourne light rail lines, other exmaples include those near the MCG. Also the the stop on the Parkville traffic island and the soutbound side of stop 1 under the railway viaduct.

Vienna stops are only at kerb height, did they have any of them before they even thought of ordering low floor trams? We had a few "plaform" stops here in Melborune long before the low floor tram, examples incude the those on the St Kilda and Port Mebourne light rail lines, other exmaples include those near the MCG. Also the the stop on the Parkville traffic island and the soutbound side of stop 1 under the railway viaduct.

Vienna has kerb side running in a number of places. This in effect is the same, but not quite, and would have influenced their decision to procure ULF trams.

Liam.

Actually, Oradea is the only other city to have ordered that same design, and no other city still has even ordered a similar design, not even Zagreb and Turin, which do have lots of kerbside running.

Actually, Oradea is the only other city to have ordered that same design, and no other city still has even ordered a similar design, not even Zagreb and Turin, which do have lots of kerbside running.

The ULF was the Austrian solution to providing level boarding in the typical Central European environment where (not only kerbsides but) platforms have been built over many years at kerb height - i.e. about 150 mm. It was a clever solution but the new generations of low floor trams have pretty much standardised an about 300 mm as a platform height, so that's the way it is and the ULF has become an orphan really.

Most systems with 150 mm high platforms are obviously happy to buy the 300 mm low floors and either progressively raise their platforms, or accept that a 150 mm height difference isn't that much, which it isn't for the mobile and baby buggies. Wheelchairs, representing a very small percentage of users, are accommodated by the use of extendable ramps fitted to the trams.

The "Vienna" drive-over stops can also be built to 300 mm, which they are in Melbourne.

The ULF was the Austrian solution to providing level boarding in the typical Central European environment where (not only kerbsides but) platforms have been built over many years at kerb height - i.e. about 150 mm. It was a clever solution but the new generations of low floor trams have pretty much standardised an about 300 mm as a platform height, so that's the way it is and the ULF has become an orphan really.

But there's no reason why the ULF couldn't be ordered for a new build system I think. Do note that the ULF, execpt for the latest versions have kneeling mechanisms. The ULF has requried a complete undercarriage redesign. Do note that many modern low floor trams do have self-leveling air suspension, and at least one Flexity-Classsic-variant has (self-levelling) hydro pneumatic suspension, these could in theory kneel at stops.

Most systems with 150 mm high platforms are obviously happy to buy the 300 mm low floors and either progressively raise their platforms, or accept that a 150 mm height difference isn't that much, which it isn't for the mobile and baby buggies. Wheelchairs, representing a very small percentage of users, are accommodated by the use of extendable ramps fitted to the trams. The "Vienna" drive-over stops can also be built to 300 mm, which they are in Melbourne.

Building the drive over stops to 300 mm instead of 150 does mean either longer and/or steeper drive over ramps, see this news article. I don't think 150 mm is that much even for manual wheelchair users, as a noted above, stairclimbing is possible in a manual wheelchair, there are electric wheelchair designs that can climb stairs, unfortuantely the iBot mobility is out of production.

Do Vienna road rules allow permissive left* and U-turns, or to only green arrows allow those? I do suppose they happily do without our hook turn, just as we now happily do without our old left turn give way rule even though now those turning right have to give way to (not get in the way of) anything that moves, and right turning drivers thus have to be aware of the eintre sutiation, with left turning drivers being ignorant of the situation as they are not requried to give way to anything, except pedestrains crossing the side street. Did you know that turing vehicles are even requried to give way to pedestrians on a red ped signal, even though pedestrians are breaking the law by crossing.

*Too bad that Mainland Europe has now standardised on driving on the right, when it comes to road vehicles, as well as trams, driving on the left appears to be more natural for right handed people, also note that most people are right eye dominant, but do note that, given that the traffic directionallity determines which turns cross the path of oncoming traffic, geogaphy and travel pattern may fovour one direction of traffic over the other.

....

*Too bad that Mainland Europe has now standardised on driving on the right, when it comes to road vehicles, as well as trams, driving on the left appears to be more natural for right handed people, also note that most people are right eye dominant, but do note that, given that the traffic directionallity determines which turns cross the path of oncoming traffic, geogaphy and travel pattern may fovour one direction of traffic over the other.

Apparently with neuro-psychology as advanced as it is now they've discovered that driving on the left is (apparently) more natural for the majority.  Don't ask me to cite where I saw it, it's probably a really controversial research finding and contentious.

I've noticed the Siemens are getting really noisy at speed now that they're coming up to 10 years old.  You never saw those kind of vibration problems on older trams - it's probably got to do with their being low floor I suppose?  Hopefully it's something these new ones being built has  addressed.

I should also link to this report which goes into detail about the accesibility issues. It even mentions a double trafficable easy access stops.

Apparently with neuro-psychology as advanced as it is now they've discovered that driving on the left is (apparently) more natural for the majority.  Don't ask me to cite where I saw it, it's probably a really controversial research finding and contentious.

Having spent much time during my life driving on the right, as well as on the left, I find my neuro-psychology boils down to a simple switch in the brain that I flick over as I step into the car. The switch hasn't failed yet and I'm equally comfortable with either side of the road! Just speaking from the laboratory rat's perspective.

Of course trying to stop putting your "wrong" hand into the driver's door pocket to change gears takes a little longer.

Of course trying to stop putting your "wrong" hand into the driver's door pocket to change gears takes a little longer.

Not to mention turning the wipers on every time you try and indicate. That's the biggest problem I have with driving in countries where they drive on the left.

Back on topic. Are we any closer to seeing an E class tram undergoing testing on the Melbourne system?

Not to mention turning the wipers on every time you try and indicate. That's the biggest problem I have with driving in countries where they drive on the left.

Back on topic. Are we any closer to seeing an E class tram undergoing testing on the Melbourne system?

That's just Euro cars, most have the sticks on the wrong side of the steering wheel. Mine has them round the wrong way, very annoying when I drive someone else's car, even worse when I get back into mine.

We should see an E class delivered to Preston sometime in July. There is already one moving under it's own power at Dandenong.

Liam.