Re: [Melb] New trams have few seats [was Batchelor says W-class trams to be back asap

[David McLoughlin <davemcl@NO***damned***SPAMiprolink.co.nz>]

Mike Alexander wrote:

> I have the same drawings, and agree with David. However, once you see them
> it is hard to see how exactly they would fit in more seats. For example, in
> the 29m-long 5-section tram, by the time you take out doorways,
> articulations and driver's cabs, the useable length for seating is only
> about 18.5 metres. And in that length there are three sets of "bogies"
> (can't really call them that in a low-floor tram) which seem to intrude into
> the saloon and dictate the seating arrangements. The smaller version is
> similar with only about 12m of usable seating space in its 19m length, and
> two sets of intrusive bogies.

As I was saying, a tram perfectly suited to the heavy standing loads
short-distance in compact European cities, but most unsuited to
Melbourne's longer-distance travelling patterns. They'll be okay on St
Kilda Rd for its short-distance reverse peaks but for regular use, I can
imagine a lot of complaints.

That's what happens when you flog off your tram system to foreign
companies affiliated with European rolling-stock builders.

These will be the first trams in (IIRC) the entire history of
Melbourne's trams that were not designed (and built) in Melbourne for
Melbourne conditions.

 
> > A few of the seats in the five-section version are 4+4 but most are 2+2
> > or sideways-facing (longitudinal like in the saloons of the W2s).
> >
> > There are no 4+4s in the three-section version at all.
> 
> 4+4? 8 seats across?]

No, blocks of four seats, two abreast but back to back.


David McLoughlin
Auckland New Zealand