[TRIVIAL} MEL, E-class, incorrectly numbered?

 
  thadocta Chief Commissioner

Location: Katoomba
Just to introduce some light-heartedness into this forum, are the new Melbourne E-class trams incorrectly numbered?

We have the B1 and B2 class - both 2-section trams - numbered in the 2xxx range.

We have the C and D1 class - both 3-section trams - numbered in the 3xxx range.

We have the C2 and D2 class - both 5-section trams - numbered in the 5xxx range.

Since the E-class is only 3-sections shouldn't they be numbered somewhere in the 3xxx range?

I will defer to other silliness that will show up shortly.

Dave

Sponsored advertisement

  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
So you were expecting logically consistent numbering from a bureaucracy? Rolling Eyes

I suspect that they just thought that as the E class were 1 or 2 metres longer than the C2 and D2 classes, they should have a higher number.

The person who devised the earlier numbering scheme for multi unit trams had most certainly moved on by the time the E class were introduced and the new bureaucrat responsible for allocating numbers may not have noticed the reason the earlier trams were numbered the way they were.

Personally I liked the really old tram numbering system where they started at number 1 and kept going to number 1041. I reckon the rot set in when when the Z class was introduced and they restarted at number 1, reusing the old numbers from scrapped trams.
  M636C Minister for Railways


Personally I liked the really old tram numbering system where they started at number 1 and kept going to number 1041. I reckon the rot set in when when the Z class was introduced and they restarted at number 1, reusing the old numbers from scrapped trams.
Bogong
One of the few things that can be said in favour of the current Sydney system is that they continued the old numbering.

The highest number in the old system was 2087 and the new Variotrams started at 2101.

Owing to superstition, they left 2013 blank.

The short lived Spanish Urbos 2 cars were numbered in sequence, although they've now gone.

And it allows people in Sydney to realise they had twice as many trams as Melbourne did in the old days.

M636C
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
Did the 2000 odd Sydney trams in the old numbering system include their steam and cable trams?

If so, in addition to the 1041 of the pre 1975 MMTB numbering system, Melbourne's total would need to include trams of the cable network (which was the world's biggest at it's height) as well as electric trams of the council and private electric tramways that were not absorbed into the Melbourne and Metro Tramways Board.

That would add a few hundred more trams to Melbourne's total bringing it close to the Sydney total.
  M636C Minister for Railways

Did the 2000 odd Sydney trams in the old numbering system include their steam and cable trams?
Bogong
No.

The steam trams and cable trams in Sydney were numbered in individually separate systems.

(A few steam tram motors technically belonged to the NSWGR and they were numbered in the NSW steam locomotive series).

The Sydney electric cars were initially numbered in separate series at each depot but a unified numbering of electric cars only was introduced about 1900-1901.

So the Sydney electric car numbers were generally equivalent to the M&MTB car numbers, Sydney's steam trams finally disappearing in the late 1930s as Melbourne's last cable trams disappeared in the 1940s.

So the highest numbers of 2087 and 1041 are equivalent.

It might be argued that more of the Sydney cars would have been withdrawn before the end of the system since the numbering started around 20 years earlier.

However, even I was surprised to see the number 2108 on the lowest numbered Urbos 2....

M636C

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.