The New Tram/Light Rail Line

[Tim Williams]

I am very impressed with these new light rail units, well appointed inside and plenty of circulating space. Unfortunately in Adelaide we have the standard narrow Frankfurt??? ones, which is a great pity and was unnecessary, as the previous old 1929 standard trams were were quite wide. I think with such a small initial order, Adelaide Metro purchased some standard "off the shelf" units to save money - now we have cramped LRT's and the Madrid ones are no better. All the street infrastructure has naturally been built around these narrow units, so that is that.

If Sydney is operating these new units in double sets (totally??), why did they not buy longer LRT's? - lot of wasted space (and cost) with 4 driving compartments per operating set. Are they operated as single units in the evenings?

And again, as with Adelaide, the wonderful contravision adverts prevail all over most units that I have seen.

[tonyp]

I am very impressed with these new light rail units, well appointed inside and plenty of circulating space. Unfortunately in Adelaide we have the standard narrow Frankfurt??? ones, which is a great pity and was unnecessary, as the previous old 1929 standard trams were were quite wide. I think with such a small initial order, Adelaide Metro purchased some standard "off the shelf" units to save money - now we have cramped LRT's and the Madrid ones are no better. All the street infrastructure has naturally been built around these narrow units, so that is that.

If Sydney is operating these new units in double sets (totally??), why did they not buy longer LRT's? - lot of wasted space (and cost) with 4 driving compartments per operating set. Are they operated as single units in the evenings?

And again, as with Adelaide, the wonderful contravision adverts prevail all over most units that I have seen.

I believe the modernised Adelaide system was created in a political and administrative environment of begrudging tolerance, much like Sydney's which spent its first 14 years being held at arm's length by a government and bureaucracy that were opposed to trams (the project was initiated by a previous government of the opposite political side). In these situations, corners are often cut. In Adelaide, not only was there the narrow trams with insufficient capacity, but there was an operation-constricting single track section in North Terrace just in order to preserve a right-turn car lane.

I believe that the reason for the coupled Alstom trams in Sydney is that Alstom didn't produce a cheap single-unit tram of this length at the time, but they were the manufacturer in the winning consortium, so there was no opportunity to purchase an alternative model. The trams are always run coupled, so it's a complete snafu, together with TfNSW ordering CAF trams with not enough doors for the traffic they carry. However, it's all better than the bus services both routes replaced or supplemented. Both lines carry more patronage than any single bus route in Sydney which indicates that the demand was always there, but suppressed by capacity constraints.

[boronia]

Yesterday I was the ES Marks stop on the L3 about 5 pm. Around 20 people were waiting for the tram, but just 2 people at the adjacent "quicker" bus stop. Both arrived at the same time, so waiting time was not a factor.

[Linto63]

Both lines carry more patronage than any single bus route in Sydney which indicates that the demand was always there, but suppressed by capacity constraints.

A bit hard to quantify until we return to pre-Covid levels of demand, but you need to compare the light rail loadings with that of all the 3xx routes that traverse Anzac Parade pre and post to gain a meaningful comparison. Having caught a couple of off-peak services from beyond the L2 and L3 termini last week, passengers didn't appear to be alighting in droves to catch the light rail.

[Swift]

Adelaide having the narrowest trams is quite comical when it was known for it's overwidth buses.

[Glen]

I happened to be in Adelaide last weekend and caught a tram at about 5pm on a Friday night from Victoria Square to Glenelg, just before the 5 minute peak frequency kicks in.

It was packed solid, cheek to cheek. Obviously no pandemic there!

[moa999]

If Sydney is operating these new units in double sets (totally??), why did they not buy longer LRT's? - lot of wasted space (and cost) with 4 driving compartments per operating set. Are they operated as single units in the evenings?
.

Nope. Only operated as doubles.

Think the longest Alstom offers these days in the X05 series is a 7-segment tram (about 45m).
Sydney had originally planned something like this with doubles running to double platforms at Central, Moore Park and Royal Randwick for events, but this got dropped for what we have.

[tonyp]

Nope. Only operated as doubles.

Think the longest Alstom offers these days in the X05 series is a 7-segment tram (about 45m).
Sydney had originally planned something like this with doubles running to double platforms at Central, Moore Park and Royal Randwick for events, but this got dropped for what we have.

Alstom does have the Citadis Spirit which can be this (60 metre) length as a single tram and has the advantage of proper bogies that provide better performance on curves, but it is possible to only get a maximum of nine doors on it compared to the desirable 12 that the X05 has - plus the doors aren't evenly spaced. However, this tram would have cost Alstom more in the context of a fixed price contract where the cheapest possible vehicle is in the supplier's interest.

A couple of other manufacturers have single consist trams of this length and the best of those for Sydney would be the Siemens Avenio that also has the advantage of swivelling bogies and up to 14 doors (client's choice, certainly 12 is possible):

https://www.mobility.siemens.com/global ... venio.html

But of course Siemens wasn't the manufacturer in the winning consortium, in fact they didn't even bid in any consortium. The consortium method rarely offers the best outcomes across the board compared to choosing and ordering the trams separately, but, of course, that requires having people with good knowledge and experience of tram types. In Australia, that would be in Melbourne only.

[tonyp]

Another leading candidate would be the Skoda 15T:

https://www.skoda.cz/data/catalog/6/100/898.pdf

A six module 60 metre tram with proper bogies and 12 evenly-spaced doors in this length. Both this tram and the Avenio are also available as 30 and 40/45 metre trams, in which version they'd be perfect for IWLR and Parramatta. These two tram models would be the leading choice on the market for design adaptability, technology and functionality on the Sydney lines with their curves and corners and high loadings and turnover. Unfortunately the NSW procurement process is not amenable to enabling good choices.

[Tim Williams]

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought these current LRT/Trams being a modular vehicle, could be as long or short as the operator required - just add or subtract a module or two to obtain the desired length.

A comment was made about fixed bogie LRT's - I worked for a multinational for a number of years that required me to spend 3 days every week in Melbourne and two days in Adelaide (home) and I was there during the introduction of their Citadis and Combino LRT's and all the talk was about the fixed bogies and the effect they would have on the tracks, let alone their poor jerky ride around the numerous bends in the Melbourne system - it is good that they have reverted to home designed and built vehicles, including swiveling bogies.

So, going back to the point above, why couldn't additional modules have been added to these Sydney units to have avoided the current double unit situation which seems incredibly wasteful.

[tonyp]

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought these current LRT/Trams being a modular vehicle, could be as long or short as the operator required - just add or subtract a module or two to obtain the desired length.

It's a bit more mathematically complicated when there are alternating suspended modules. For the Citadis X05, it would be either nine modules (too short) or eleven modules (too long). The Siemens design has a bogie on every module and the Skoda design has Jacobs bogies, so both are more flexible in varying the length required.

[Glen]

Wasn't there also an issue in Sydney with RMS concerns about the number of times trams would cross side streets along George St (i.e. traffic delays) if single trams ran, say, twice as often (in simple terms) ?

[tonyp]

Wasn't there also an issue in Sydney with RMS concerns about the number of times trams would cross side streets along George St (i.e. traffic delays) if single trams ran, say, twice as often (in simple terms) ?

The traffic light cycles were definitely an issue.

[Tim Williams]

A couple of other points about these new units that interest me:
1. Are the pantographs manually raised and lowered at Town Hall?? - if so is there some safety override for a possible operator lapse of concentration.
2. Why wasn't the red chevron livery (of the Dulwich Hill line units) perpetuated?
3. Having ridden on both lines today (principally to get to the Bus Museum), their is a clear difference between how both types ride over the Haymarket crossing - the Dulwich Hill ones are significantly smoother, in fact the effect of the crossing seems to reverberate through the entire units on the new ones.

[Tim Williams]

Spelling error - next to last line (penultimate one) should read "there is a clear difference......"
My apologies!!

[boronia]

1. Everything seems to be automated on the trams, even the destination signs are auto controlled. But I got a photo of one set at Circular Quay during the testing phases with the panto raised (but quickly retracted) which suggests the drivers may have some manual control.

2. Both lines use similar chevron style livery, but it differently applied at the ends and centres.

3. Might be something to do with the suspension of the Citadis, as they tend to ride rough over all track crossings.

[Jurassic_Joke]

I am very impressed with these new light rail units, well appointed inside and plenty of circulating space. Unfortunately in Adelaide we have the standard narrow Frankfurt??? ones, which is a great pity and was unnecessary, as the previous old 1929 standard trams were were quite wide. I think with such a small initial order, Adelaide Metro purchased some standard "off the shelf" units to save money - now we have cramped LRT's and the Madrid ones are no better. All the street infrastructure has naturally been built around these narrow units, so that is that.

If Sydney is operating these new units in double sets (totally??), why did they not buy longer LRT's? - lot of wasted space (and cost) with 4 driving compartments per operating set. Are they operated as single units in the evenings?

And again, as with Adelaide, the wonderful contravision adverts prevail all over most units that I have seen.

Yeah 2.4m wide trams aren’t great for sure. Not that spacious at all!

As for the second paragraph, the government wanted this thing to be really high capacity, but as others said, the highest capacity Citadis Alstom currently offers is a 7-module length tram. We originally were gonna go with that, albeit CAF trams but then Alstom was part of the winning consortium and government instead decided to run services as coupled 5-module length trams. It would’ve have the advantage of being able to run the Citadis’ as single car sets on the Dulwich Hill line, but thanks to another blunder made somewhere, the Citadis are incompatible with the Dulwich hill line for passenger service thanks to differing specifications on floor height and width.

[tonyp]

As for the second paragraph, the government wanted this thing to be really high capacity, but as others said, the highest capacity Citadis Alstom currently offers is a 7-module length tram. We originally were gonna go with that, albeit CAF trams but then Alstom was part of the winning consortium and government instead decided to run services as coupled 5-module length trams. It would’ve have the advantage of being able to run the Citadis’ as single car sets on the Dulwich Hill line, but thanks to another blunder made somewhere, the Citadis are incompatible with the Dulwich hill line for passenger service thanks to differing specifications on floor height and width.

The sequence of decisions at the time was:

1. Original preference for 45 metre trams and platforms.
2. Sydney City Council objects to 45 metre platforms, so plan changes to 30 metre trams and platforms.
3. Project scoped and tendered on that basis (Alstom to provide 30 metre X05 trams).
4. System is designed for 2 minute headways in order to provide the capacity.
5. Tussle with RMS ensues about the number of trams demanding traffic light priority.
6. Changed to 4 minute headways (except Central-Moore Park/Randwick Racecourse still 2 minutes)
7. Project director states that capacity will be insufficient for demand on the above basis.
8. Alstom, already locked into a specific tram design, suggests adding another 30 metre car to each consist (in return for more money).
9. Everything goes ahead on that basis.

The X05 tram can only be lengthened in units of two modules (the CAF model has the same issue, so nothing to be gained there), so the tram would not be able to be provided as a single unit at the required length. Alternative tram designs (with swivelling bogies and bogies under each module) can be lengthened in units of one, but Alstom's only offering on that front doesn't have enough doors, plus they were contractually locked in with the model included in the tender, so it would have cost Alstom more to change to a more expensive model.

Anybody who thinks choosing optimum bus designs is difficult, hold my beer.

I don't like the coupled sets consist because it's difficult to equalise the loading as boarders can't see which car is emptier and, once aboard, they can't move through the tram to find more space. The old Melbourne suburban trains without interconnecting doors used to have that issue many years ago. It's not a good outcome but we don't have a chance to rectify it until the next round of fleet replacement in 20 to 30 years.

[Linto63]

I don't like the coupled sets consist because it's difficult to equalise the loading as boarders can't see which car is emptier and, once aboard, they can't move through the tram to find more space.

It's not really as issue though as with the exception of Moore Park (except during special events), passengers enter all platforms from both directions, so unlike a train at a terminal station which will fill up from the rear, passengers disperse along platforms fairly evenly.

[Swift]

Have to rely on the law of averages there. How many people do you see carriage surfing anyway? Usually the less desirable element.
I absolutely despise leaving them as coupled sets by default (they look ludicrous unless there's a special purpose) bit I doubt that's an issue, especially with the frequent stops.

[Linto63]

I absolutely despise leaving them as coupled sets by default (they look ludicrous unless there's a special purpose) bit I doubt that's an issue, especially with the frequent stops.

So they should run as single sets at times?

[Swift]

Y-E-S spells yes.

[Fleet Lists]

When?

[Tim Williams]

Tonyp's sequence of events (probably better described as progress stages), does show that with the Sydney City Council and the RMS involved, an optimum outcome was not going to be, this combined with the fact that the supplier contract was signed, prior to an agreed outcome with those two parties.

Irrespective of the above, it seems a great shame that a longer single unit design could not have been specified and ordered. I do appreciate that it is not just a case of adding/ connecting up an additional module or two, but I feel confident in saying that, if the optimum length had been specified from the beginning , as part of the tender documents, then the nonsense of running these LRT's as double units would not have had to be.

So, now having purchased these particular LRT's, why do they need to run as doubles all the time - I did a couple of journeys from one end to the other, around mid/late morning/mid day today and all journeys could easily have been handled by single units - yesterday seemed the same!

What do others think, are my observations not representative of usual loadings?? Does this service need to operate double units all the time? Are doubles then needed for rush hours and special event/occasions only?

[tonyp]

Unlike many traditional European tram operations, these trams aren't designed for quick coupling/uncoupling in service. They're only ever uncoupled/coupled for maintenance. This procedure would also need a bit of shunting space and the Randwick depot is like a sardine can. It's not a big deal anyway, it's still one driver and very little extra operating cost. Running smaller trams would mean more drivers needed.