Andrews Government rolls back partial order for 10 extra E-class trams

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 08 Dec 2020 14:37
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
An E class draws 1200 amps on starting in the CBD.  The new trams 25m long for 125 pax are to feature on board energy storage, so that when they start in CBD energy draw will be no greater than 600amps.

This avoids the need for additional substations in the CBD which are very hard to site, plus potentially on any future short extensions wiring may not be required for the extension other than at the terminus to maintain a/c etc lighting and recharge the on board electrical storage whilst at the terminus.

Intention is to replace all existing  Z, A, and B2 class trams with  1.7 of the new type tram so as to replace the remaining existing  high floor fleet plus cater for projected growth in patronage. (B2 class will be last to go apparently)

The only issue is we should be adding 25 new trams a year to cater for growth and also to achieve a fully compliant DDA low floor fleet by 2032. To date we have been adding only 10 new trams a year and now we are not going to get any new trams for three years 2022, 2023 & 2024  !!!!!

It has taken a staggering 10 years to come up with the spec and actually get to calling for EOI for the new energy efficient tram type.

Unfortunately the tram network is the poor cousin in terms of both fleet investment, and also the most logical network improvements to maximize the best use of the existing network asset.  

For example :  1. 300m of  missing track in Park Street South Melbourne to allow trams from the Domain to also enter the CBD via Clarendon and Spencer Street  2.  750m of new track in Victoria Street between Latrobe and Swanston Streets allowing for a Northern cross city tram route from Victoria Gardens to Arden Station. and 3. A 250m extension from the existing Port Melbourne terminus to the Station Pier Gatehouse.

Trams carry 86 % of the patronage carried by Metro trains, and actually carry more people at Off Peak times than Metro trains, but capex wise our ever faithful tram network gets handed funding "Crumbs".
kuldalai
Don't disagree, but Vic like all state govts will be looking for cash flow savings.

Sponsored advertisement

  route14 Chief Commissioner

E class do seem to be too power consuming to me, and are too demanding for the infrastructure, but onboard energy storage doesn't SAVE power.  It's demanded sooner or later.  Trams never swerve off tracks so the need to run offline is minimal, unless they simply don't want to install overhead.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

................... The new trams 25m long for 125 pax are to feature on board energy storage, so that when they start in CBD energy draw will be no greater than 600amps.

...........................................
A B-class tram is 23.5m long and carries 160 passengers.




.............................................

Intention is to replace all existing  Z, A, and B2 class trams with  1.7 of the new type tram so as to replace the remaining existing  high floor fleet plus cater for projected growth in patronage. (B2 class will be last to go apparently)

........................................................................................
kuldalai
Does this mean 100 x Next Generation Trams will replace a mix of 170 x Z, A and B-class or the NGT order will be extended to 170 units?
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
@kuldalai The 109 still turns at Spencer/Collins...
  tram1041 Locomotive Fireman

Is there anymore news around this? The E class will definitely finish at 100? Is there any news about a follow on F class?

I am surprised to see E class running on the route 30...a total waste of tram.

Seems like the Z3 and A will be with us for a long, long time yet...
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but I understood that the use of E class trams on route 30 was just temporary until they go into service on route 58. Driver training has been taking place on the latter.

As for the next generation trams who knows? Money was allocated in last years budget but where the project is currently up to is anybody's guess.
Mike you are correct the use of E's on the route 30 is only temporary to give them in service time and to build up the km's.I have heard that the route 30 may not be a stand alone route after the E's start on the 58,but rather be absorbed into anther route which will be the full time Latrobe st service plus the fact that the A's are due to start being life extended in the next couple of months meaning a few of the road at any one time.There will however be some surplus Z3's lurking around so maybe we will see some of these fill the gap.  

E Class are due to start on the 58 on 3/10.
Not sufficient E class in total currently to make a substantial improvement on 58 so 4 - 5 are temporarily on the 30 Latrobe Street Shuttle.

With last of 100 E class nearing then a worthwhile no of E class can go onto 58 (including those currently on 30 in Latrobe Street).  There is some word around that then that will release 5 - 6 A-2 off 58, which will then be added to Route 75 and allow Route 75 extension up Latrobe St to terminate at St Vincents Plaza Turnback, (replacing Route 30 in Latrobe St altogether.)

Further to improve the service frequency in Latrobe St 12 should revert to operating via Latrobe & Spencer Streets, with 30 running with available A & Z class a Collins Street shuttle between Victoria Harbour & St Vincents Plaza.  Eliminates turning moves at Spencer/Collins, and provides continuous service along Spencer St, plus increases frequency in Latrobe Street  "win/win".
kuldalai
Kuldalai,the reason that the E's were put onto the 30 was as i described plus the fact that the 58 was not ready infrastructure wise,with substantial track upgrades needing to be completed last year including the complete relaying of Royal Park from end to end,a new terminus at West Coburg plus a new substation and power and stop upgrades/relocations.Also as far as the 75 & 12 idea goes i totally agree the 12 should have always been a full time Latrobe st service shared between Kew & S/B so that space can be freed up at S/B for the extra E's for the 58 & operationally save a lot of dead running,but your comment about releasing 5-6 A2's off the 58 for the 75 i not correct as A Class don't run on the 58.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
E class do seem to be too power consuming to me, and are too demanding for the infrastructure, but onboard energy storage doesn't SAVE power.  It's demanded sooner or later.  Trams never swerve off tracks so the need to run offline is minimal, unless they simply don't want to install overhead.
route14
Its on the average load that this the issue, its the peaking loading from the tram that causes the limitations. 700VDC is only good for 1km or so and if you have a few trams lined up behind the lights and they take off together, they cause a massive load on the OH. Having a battery on board limits their max load draw from the OH to something more manageable. If all trams had this capability then the OH costs would be lower as it would also enable longer runs of the OH between feeders.

Yes, the battery option would also enable gaps in the OH which may also make construction and road use access by high loads more practical including LX with heavy rail and avoid high cost OH junctions.

Also where tram tracks cross as well as Mall running and other similar free of OH for visual and other applications like where in Sydney they choose to use the high cost ground pickup technology through the CBD. So potentially in Melbourne in the future they can dewire similar locations to improve the visual aspects of the city.  

Long-term is the right direction but the real benefits may not materialise for years to come.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Battery scrap causes pollution.  Higher capacity (or double wiring, as already done in Sydney's suburban rail) OH causes much less environmental impact and have much longer life span.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

The approximate capacity of the current Z, A and B-class fleet is:
100 x Z-class (110-passenger) = 11,000 passengers
60 x A-class (100-passenger) = 6,000 passengers
120 x B-class (160-passenger) = 19,200 passengers
Total = 36,200 passengers

Generously reducing the above figure by 20% to allow for the fact that the older trams will be less reliable than the Next Generation Trams, and hence require more spares, reduces the total to about 29,000 passengers.

Compare this with the budgeted NGT fleet capacity:
100 x NGT (125-passenger) = 12,500 passengers

or

100 x NGT (150-passenger) = 15,000 passengers


It looks like there will need to be significant timetable cuts as well and/or a fare restructure to dissuade travel (the Free Tram Zone won’t cut it). There doesn’t seem to be much room for projected growth.

Note: the given older fleet sizes are pessimistic to allow for those involved in collisions, etc
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
The approximate capacity of the current Z, A and B-class fleet is:
100 x Z-class (110-passenger) = 11,000 passengers
60 x A-class (100-passenger) = 6,000 passengers
120 x B-class (160-passenger) = 19,200 passengers
Total = 36,200 passengers

Generously reducing the above figure by 20% to allow for the fact that the older trams will be less reliable than the Next Generation Trams, and hence require more spares, reduces the total to about 29,000 passengers.

Compare this with the budgeted NGT fleet capacity:
100 x NGT (125-passenger) = 12,500 passengers

or

100 x NGT (150-passenger) = 15,000 passengers


It looks like there will need to be significant timetable cuts as well and/or a fare restructure to dissuade travel (the Free Tram Zone won’t cut it). There doesn’t seem to be much room for projected growth.

Note: the given older fleet sizes are pessimistic to allow for those involved in collisions, etc
kitchgp
Good analysis.

Maybe the intention is not for the NGT to replace all of the Z, A and B class trams at once.  Perhaps it is only the Zs and As that go first, with a further order of NGTs required to replace the Bs.

Ross
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

The approximate capacity of the current Z, A and B-class fleet is:
100 x Z-class (110-passenger) = 11,000 passengers
60 x A-class (100-passenger) = 6,000 passengers
120 x B-class (160-passenger) = 19,200 passengers
Total = 36,200 passengers

Generously reducing the above figure by 20% to allow for the fact that the older trams will be less reliable than the Next Generation Trams, and hence require more spares, reduces the total to about 29,000 passengers.

Compare this with the budgeted NGT fleet capacity:
100 x NGT (125-passenger) = 12,500 passengers

or

100 x NGT (150-passenger) = 15,000 passengers


It looks like there will need to be significant timetable cuts as well and/or a fare restructure to dissuade travel (the Free Tram Zone won’t cut it). There doesn’t seem to be much room for projected growth.

Note: the given older fleet sizes are pessimistic to allow for those involved in collisions, etc
Good analysis.

Maybe the intention is not for the NGT to replace all of the Z, A and B class trams at once.  Perhaps it is only the Zs and As that go first, with a further order of NGTs required to replace the Bs.

Ross
Rossco T
The initial 100 new generation are aimed at replacing the A and Z class , and the B2 remain for till 2032 to be replaced by further order new trams replacing B2 and also catering for growth.
the indicated intention is to replace each of the existing Z, A and B2 class with 1.7 new vehicles to replace the existing capacity plus cater for predicted growth.

It is not clear whether the new trams will have regnerative braking that can can recharge the on board electric storage facility.

Sorry my typo story doing rounds is that all E off 30 on latrobe St go onto 58 from 10/21 releasing some B2 from 58 that allow for 75 to be extended up Latrobe St to St Vincents Plaza replacing 30, which moves to Collins street operated by anything available.  

If 12 ran via Latrobe & Spencer, then one alters 109 to run straight down Collins to Victoria Harbour and later Fishermans Bend. And 86 gets re directed to port melbourne then all the turning moves are elimiated at Spencer & Collins Streets.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Assuming there are 280 x Z, A & B-class in service, a 1.7-new for 1-old replacement would require a total order of 475 Next Generation Trams. 475 NGT x 125 passengers-per-tram gives a capacity of 59,000.

Extending Route 75 to St Vincents Plaza will probably lead to some pretty erratic timetable keeping by trams eastbound along La Trobe Street. Vermont South is a long way. It may also affect westbound, to a lesser extent, depending on how much time is allowed for turn rounds at St Vincents Plaza.

Demand for travel along La Trobe Street (& Collins Street) is likely to significantly increase when the Metro Tunnel opens.
  Obzerva Locomotive Fireman

Location: #6 / Glen Waverley line
Extending Route 75 to St Vincents Plaza will probably lead to some pretty erratic timetable keeping by trams eastbound along La Trobe Street. Vermont South is a long way. It may also affect westbound, to a lesser extent, depending on how much time is allowed for turn rounds at St Vincents Plaza.

Demand for travel along La Trobe Street (& Collins Street) is likely to significantly increase when the Metro Tunnel opens.
kitchgp

Agree, with your thoughts re the timetable and keeping in on time.

Surely until the demand warrants it, it would be more logical to keep the 75 as it is and merging the 78 + 30.
Instead of the 78 terminating at Victoria st, have it turn left and run Victoria until it just connects up to the current route 30.
(may need an upgrade at the corner of Victoria & Church to do it - unsure)

Yes it's A class trams but if the capacity isn't needed until a few years, it's a good stop gap and doesn't make the 75 more subject to disruption.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
So now we are going to pay for trams that are not going to be delivered. Just as well there is no budget problems in Victoria.
Donald
This happens in (non government) airlines all time time.  Orders are cancelled and penalties are payable.  You sign a contract and pull out, every business will be up for some sort of penalty.
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

Extending Route 75 to St Vincents Plaza will probably lead to some pretty erratic timetable keeping by trams eastbound along La Trobe Street. Vermont South is a long way. It may also affect westbound, to a lesser extent, depending on how much time is allowed for turn rounds at St Vincents Plaza.

Demand for travel along La Trobe Street (& Collins Street) is likely to significantly increase when the Metro Tunnel opens.

Agree, with your thoughts re the timetable and keeping in on time.

Surely until the demand warrants it, it would be more logical to keep the 75 as it is and merging the 78 + 30.
Instead of the 78 terminating at Victoria st, have it turn left and run Victoria until it just connects up to the current route 30.
(may need an upgrade at the corner of Victoria & Church to do it - unsure)

Yes it's A class trams but if the capacity isn't needed until a few years, it's a good stop gap and doesn't make the 75 more subject to disruption.
Obzerva
Yes that is another option merge 78 and 30 and termiante at Central Pier Docklands.
benefits provides a direct link from North Richmond station by tram to the Cremorne / South Yarra office precinct.  Only takes 3 - 4 more A/Z class to maintain the existing frequency as extra kms overall brom Victoria/Church to St V Plaza.  Requires a double curve pair from Church St West into Victoria St at North Richmond.
Doesnt realli increase capacity in Latrobe without 12 also running via Latrobe & Spencer.

Both William Street &  Latrobe Street badly need a second route and increased service frequency.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Thinking of the total capacity, route 19 used to have a combined frequency of 2 minutes (route 18, 20 and 19) south of Brunswick Depot with W class, and when B class were introduced, the peak frequency was reduced to 4 minutes.  The total capacity was about the same and the frequency was still user friendly.  When D2 class were introduced, the peak frequency was reduced to 6 minutes.  So instead of transporting 546 passengers (3 B class) every 12 minutes, they now transport 382 passengers (2 D2 class) every 12 minutes.  If the new generation trams will be both fewer in fleet size and less in capacity, that's not good news.
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

Thinking of the total capacity, route 19 used to have a combined frequency of 2 minutes (route 18, 20 and 19) south of Brunswick Depot with W class, and when B class were introduced, the peak frequency was reduced to 4 minutes.  The total capacity was about the same and the frequency was still user friendly.  When D2 class were introduced, the peak frequency was reduced to 6 minutes.  So instead of transporting 546 passengers (3 B class) every 12 minutes, they now transport 382 passengers (2 D2 class) every 12 minutes.  If the new generation trams will be both fewer in fleet size and less in capacity, that's not good news.
route14
For the second time each new generation tram will carry 130 pax, and each existing A &  Z class tram (approx 180 in total) is to be replaced by 1.7  new trams catering for fleet replacement and projected growth.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

OK, I got it.  There will still be a minor frequency reduction though.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Battery scrap causes pollution.  Higher capacity (or double wiring, as already done in Sydney's suburban rail) OH causes much less environmental impact and have much longer life span.
route14
Large batteries like this are progressively being repurposed and recycled.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Battery scrap causes pollution.  Higher capacity (or double wiring, as already done in Sydney's suburban rail) OH causes much less environmental impact and have much longer life span.
route14

Elizabeth Street has double contact wiring, probably because of the D2s. Courtesy of Marcus Wong:
https://railgallery.wongm.com/melbourne-tramway-overhead/E113_9628.jpg.html

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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