If you look at them head on, the difference is obvious – the Z class has a pointy nose, but the A class has a flat one.

But there is also less noticeable difference – A class trams are shorter than a Z, at 15.01 metres vs 16.64 metres.

The reason – the Z class trams were built in the 1970s to be compatible with a network designed for the W class trams.

Weston Langford photo

With a pointy nose was so a longer tram could still negotiate curves built for the W class, without smacking into oncoming trams.

And the flatter fronted A class trams need to be shorter lest their noses come afoul on the same curves.

And the reason for the difference – a state election of all things!

John Dunn details it in his book “A History of Commonwealth Engineering – volume 4, 1977-1985″.

Since it was expected that the M&MTB would very soon need to order more new trams, the Comeng team at Dandenong began looking at a revised version of the Z3 units in the early 1980s – these being dubbed by them as Z4s.

A number of different concepts were considered, all of which were intended to be cheaper to manufacture, lower in mass, and more economical to operate. The structure was value-engineered so as reduce the number of components, the cab was intended to be a self-contained GRP module, and various other fittings and items of equipment reviewed and simplified. It was proposed to adopt the simple PCC bogie design-this being very much cheaper to manufacture compared to the Duewag units. They were also considered to be better riding. The Z4 trams had no conductor’s desks and therefore the seating capacity was potentially 66, and with a standing capacity of 84-an overall increase of 25 passengers compared to the Z3s.

By early 1982 the M&MTB was waiting on authorisation from the Victorian Government to order up to 100 new trams presumably to the Z3 design. But in April 1982 there was an election in Victoria and the Cain Labor Government came into power-the new transport minister being Steve Crabb. New tram orders were therefore put on hold.

And interference from an incoming transport minister, who wanted to put their own stamp on the next order of trams.

It was some time before the new government gave their approval for additional trams to be ordered from Comeng once the tenders were in. It came as a variation to the Z3 contract-an extension that was secured by the company in late 1982. The order was for twenty-eight single-unit trams nominated A-class, and two, prototype, two-unit articulated trams nominated B-class. However, the new A-class trams differed from the previous Z3 type in that they had no conductor’s seats, and the car ends were shorter and wider. They also had resized and relocated doors. The press reported that the A-class units were anticipated to cost approximately $430,000 ($1.3 million) each.

Which caused the engineers at Comeng a whole lot of drama trying to make work.

Comeng engineer David Foulkes recalled:

We used to joke about it, because the new Transport Minister said Melbourne had had ‘pointy’ trams for some time and he wanted ones that were clearly different-ones that were ‘ours’- this is, ‘Labor’ trams. He wanted them to have wider fronts, but did not seem to understand why they had to be narrow at the front to go around curves. If they were to be wider then they had to be shorter with less overhang. He wanted a modern tram with two large doors between the bogies,

The biggest hurdle was trying to house the same Z3 equipment on the underframe. The Z3s only had one set of double-width doors and stepwells each side between the bogies. But the new A-class had to have two sets of doors between the bogies each side their respective stepwells therefore taking up much more underframe space. Foulkes said:

The electrical blokes more or less had to shoe-horn all the existing electrical equipment on a Z3 tram onto the A-class. It was a real nightmare trying to get all the equipment boxes in on the underframe along with the cables.

The A-class trams were essentially the same as the Z3s in that they were equipped with AEG thyristor control equipment. This had independent chopper power systems for each bogie, and electro-dynamic regenerative braking down to 8 km/h. The Siemens electric control system detected and corrected wheel spin and slide, and applied automatic sanding. The Duewag-designed bogies each had a 195 kW monomotor, and Bochum resilient wheels.

The shell construction was of a welded tubular-steel space- frame with outer side and end panels of aluminium and glass-reinforced plastic (GRP). The cabs were bolt-on subassemblies to allow a more accessible unit for faster installation of equipment and wiring. The entire roof was of GRP. Unlike the Z3s the front door was only single- width. The other two doors were both double-width. All doors were of the electrically driven bi-folding type.

The tare mass was 21.54 tonnes, and there were seats for 42 and standing space for around 83. With the elimination of the seated conductor, passengers could enter or alight from any door. This effectively reduced stop dwell times, and the different arrangement was generally well received by the travelling public. The trams were fitted with power collection trolley poles similar to those on the Z3s, though these were later replaced with pantographs.

Footnote – by the numbers

The first 100 Z1 class trams entered service in 1975 – 1978, followed by 15 Z2 class trams in 1978 – 1979, and 115 Z3 class trams in 1979 – 1984.

They were followed by the first 28 A1 class trams entered service in 1984 – 1985, followed by 42 A2 class trams in 1985 – 1986.

The A class tram styling was also used for the two prototype high-floor articulated B1 class trams followed in 1984 – 1985, then 130 B2 class trams in 1988 – 1994.

And Z class trams overseas

Comeng also built a fleet of Z3 class tram derivatives in 1988 for the Kowloon Canton Railway light rail system in the New Territories in Hong Kong.

These light rail vehicles are still in service today, with later vehicles built by a variety of other manufacturers to the same basic dimensions.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Similar but different – Melbourne’s Z and A class trams appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

In 1996 the Financial Review told the story of how this came to be.

If Need Be, Adtranz Trains Grow Wings
By Tony Thomas
21 October 1996

It was a big air-freight parcel, but flying two locomotives to Switzerland ensured that Adtranz kept a deadline and its reputation for innovation.

When the Adtranz factory at Dandenong, near Melbourne, built the first two of 33 locomotive bodies for Indian Railways, it had a freight problem. The prototypes had to go to the prime contractor, Adtranz Switzerland, for electrical installation and testing, but the timing was tight.

The solution was for the general manager (manufacturing) at Dandenong, Don Osborne, to contact the freight company operating the Russian Antonov super-freighter that circles the globe in search of business. The Antonov, detoured from China, took on the 96-tonne load at Avalon Airport and was in Zurich in a few days, saving about seven weeks of sea-freight time. The bill was not exactly low, but it was only one-third more than sea freight.

This is the innovative style of Adtranz, which was formed in January by merging the transport arms of Asea Brown Boveri (Sweden) and Daimler-Benz (Germany). Twenty-eight of the 33 locomotives have been delivered, and Indian rail workers will soon get the technology transfer to make their own.

Dandenong wins Adtranz locomotive and train subcontracts through internal bidding because its design and labor costs are well below the European operation’s levels. Direct labor costs are about half the European rates, and productivity, although hard to compare, is satisfactory.

Most of the output is for export. Osborne says: “It is lumpy, with a long time between lumps for local work, but for the past three to four years the factory has had a fair degree of work stability.” Dandenong, bought from Comeng in 1990, is one of three Adtranz global factories building train carriages in stainless steel; its rivals are Adtranz Sweden and Adtranz Portugal. The criteria for winning work are price, delivery and workload. Osborne foresees Dandenong getting orders for carriages worldwide, in sets of hundreds valued up to $200 million.

The Dandenong factory has 190 shop-floor workers, including 16 apprentices. Because stainless-steel welding is not a common skill, tradesmen have to re-qualify to Adtranz standards. Computer-aided design is linked to laser cutters to cut the parts. “New processes usually need a bundle of new technologies and skills,” Osborne says. In the past few years demarcation has been reduced to produce the required flexibility.

Globally, the locomotive business has split into the European group of Siemens, Adtranz and GEC Alsthom, which have the edge in lightweight electric trains, and General Electric and General Motors in the US, the kings of the heavyweight diesel-electric category. Now there are cross-Atlantic alliances covering both diesel and electric models, including a technical agreement between Adtranz and GE for lightweight diesel-electric units.

Any client inquiry leads to Adtranz mobilising globally to work out the best way of winning the bid. The internal bidding process could cause one Adtranz unit to hoard expertise. “Initially, we found it hard to share our knowledge,” Osborne says. Adtranz dealt with the issue by setting up, and helping to fund, global centres of excellence in sub-systems such as propulsion, carriage bodies and bogies. “At Dandenong we focus on car-bodies for global markets and complete vehicles for the local market.”

After the first two locomotive bodies were air freighted to Switzerland onboard a Antonov An-124, the following units were able to leave Australia by the slower route by sea. After their final fitout in Switzerland, the finished locomotives were then moved by road to the Rhine, transported by barge for transit to Rotterdam, and then by cargo ship to Calcutta.

The WAP-5 electric passenger locomotives that went by air are still in service in India today.

Photo by Abhishek Jog, via Wikimedia Commons

Along with the WAG-9 electric freight locomotives that also had their body shells built at Dandenong.

Photo by Belur Ashok from Secunderabad, India, via Wikimedia Commons

Meanwhile in Philadelphia

Believe it or not, this is another train built in the 1990s by Adtranz at Dandenong – the M-4 subway cars used on the Market–Frankford Line in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Photo by AEMoreira042281, via Wikimedia Commons

Again, the Financial Review has the back story behind the Australian connection.

Dandenong is supplying 222 carriage shells and bogie sets to the SEPTA for a subway and elevated rail system. The contract is valued at almost $100 million. The units are being shipped on top of sea containers for fitting out at Elmira, near New York, by Adtranz US. Eight prototypes are in final assembly there, and Dandenong has moved on to production versions for the next two years.

The standards are rigorous, including a 100-tonne compression test for buckling or distortion. Clients are also demanding extremely lightweight structures, compared with older designs. The penalties in the contract for excess weight are severe; equivalent to the lifetime extra energy cost per kilogram.

A SEPTA inspector from Pennsylvania is stationed at Dandenong to check product quality, which has improved practically with each new shell as output rises to 14 a month, using three shifts.

The roof and side-wall welding in the trains is being automated with a purpose-built machine made by Harris Engineering, Sydney. This will cut the welding time from almost five days to six hours. “It is not world-beating technology but it is a good solution,” Osborne says.

SEPTA has specified a 40-year guarantee of serviceability, which requires the factory workers to take a new perspective on quality and customer expectations. Bogie design must pass tests over an enormous six million cycles. In earlier years there was a cost-plus outlook and allowances for contingencies. The workers have met the challenge with new skills and more flexible work methods.

In practice, a train becomes obsolete because of patterns of use, not because of hardware. Operators chase improvements in comfort to woo people back to public transport. Osborne says: “For example, trains are replaced in favor of air-conditioned models long before the old ones wear out.”

Commissioning is a complex affair, including the measurement of various movements as the trains speed along the Pennsylvania tracks, to ensure clearances throughout the lines. Among the difficulties is that the US still uses imperial measurement, rather than metric, so components ordered from US makers need careful re-specification.

Footnote: some prophetic words

The 1996 Financial Review article also had some prophetic words given the decline in rollingstock manufacturing across Australia.

He is disappointed there is no industry-wide approach to rail vehicle supply in Australia. “Instead of the railways and suppliers sitting down and working on the best solutions for themselves and Australia, we fight over the same patch each time. The public tendering system is a major barrier to forming an efficient industry with export potential.” (The other large groups are Clyde Industries, taken over by Evans Deakin last July, and the Howard Smith subsidiary Goninan, which has been named preferred tenderer for a National Rail order for up to 120 locomotives.)

Osborne says: “In Europe, Adtranz is working jointly with its big rival Siemens on the 330-kilometre-per-hour ICE [intercity express] trains because the project can’t afford fragmented manufacture. Likewise, the Swedes and the Germans co-operate on tilt-train design. Adtranz, Siemens and Thyssen are working jointly on the Transrapid magnetic levitation train between Hamburg and Berlin, which has been operating for three years on test tracks and has a top speed of 500kmh. The industry in Australia ought to get together on a project like the next-generation Olympia class double-decker trains for the Sydney lines, create a brilliant train, then break into export markets with it.”

The world trend is for rail standardisation across borders. Australia has been one of the worst offenders on non-conformity, because each state’s rail engineers have tended to specify exclusive features. Osborne sees the first use by TNT of its own trains on government track from Sydney to Perth as the start of a new era in making rail freight more competitive.

Further reading

Indian railfan Sundar Mukherjee has covered the history of the WAP-5 and WAG-9 locomotives in his article “Indian Railways GP 140. Introduction of 3 Phase Locomotives in India. (The beginning of a new era)“.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post The train that flew from Melbourne to India appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The first coincidence

The story starts in 1977, when the Victorian Railways called tenders for 100 new air-conditioned trains for the Melbourne suburban network. Comeng Dandenong won the $108.5 million contract in 1979 with a stainless steel train with GEC traction equipment.

The first train of what are known as the ‘Comeng trains‘ was handed over in September 1981.

Weston Langford photo

A follow-on order for 90 additional trains followed in 1982, the last of which entered service in June 1989, with around half of the fleet still in service today.

Meanwhile over in South Australia, in 1983 tenders were called for 20 suburban diesel railcars for Adelaide. Both Comeng Granville and Comeng Dandenong submitted bids for various combinations of single and double-deck trains with diesel-electric and diesel-hydraulic transmissions.

In 1985 it was announced that the Comeng Dandenong design was the winner, marrying a Victorian Railways derived stainless steel bodyshell with a Stromberg diesel-electric traction package. The body shells were assembled at Dandenong and then transported by rail to Dry Creek in Adelaide for final fitout.

The first of the ‘3000/3100 class‘ railcars entered service in November 1987.

Image via Wikipedia

An additional 50 railcars being completed by Clyde Engineering between 1992 and 1996, with the fleet still being in service today.

And lighting strikes twice

In 2001 the Victorian Government called tenders for 29 2-car diesel railcars for V/Line. The $206.8 million contract was awarded to Bombardier Transportation, who had taken over the Comeng Dandenong plant through a series of corporate takeovers. The train was designed at their Brisbane offices, and was intended to follow on from their previous XPlorer train designed for NSW, but used a new bodyshell mated with a cab designed by the team behind the Transperth B-series electric multiple unit.

Dubbed ‘VLocity‘, the first train entered service in 2005.

And in the decades since, over 100 trains to the same design have joined the V/Line fleet thanks to dozens of follow-on orders.

And in 2011, the South Australia approved the electrification of the Adelaide suburban network, and needed some new electric trains to run on it. Bombardier con the contract, based on their bid combining the VLocity railcar bodyshell with the underfloor design of the Transperth B-series electric multiple unit.

Classified as the ‘4000 class‘, the first train entered service in February 2014.

Like the previous Adelaide order the Dandenong plant was involved in the contract, but this time they were responsible for completion of the entire train, which was then transported carriage-by-carriage by road for the thanks 700 kilometre section of standard gauge between the broad gauge rail networks of Adelaide and Melbourne.

An interior related footnote

As delivered the Comeng trains in Melbourne had 2-by-3 seating with tartan cushions on white fibreglass bases.

John Dunn photo

A design also applied to the Adelaide version.

In the 2000s the Melbourne trains were refurbished, with the seats replaced with a more spartan design with less padding.

An idea also copied by Adelaide.

But Victoria’s VLocity trains designed for country services received 2-by-2 high back seats with comfortable padding.

A seating layout that the Adelaide 4000 class trains also received, but with a more suburban style seat.

Sources

The book series “Comeng: A History of Commonwealth Engineering” by John Dunn covers the history of all four classes of train mention in this piece, across Volume 4 (1977-1985) and Volume 5 (1985-1990 plus ABB, Adtranz and Bombardier to 2012).

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Adelaide’s copycat trains from Melbourne appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The first proposals

The year is 1982 and Victorian Minister for Transport Steve Crabb is presented with a diagram of an articulated two-unit tram with drop centre floors by Sydney-based engineer Dr John Gerofi of Enersol Consulting Engineers.

When asked to provide further information about the concept, Gerofi sought technical assistance from Australian engineering firm Comeng, where coincidentally rollingstock designer John Dunn was also working on a number of low-floor concepts. The pair soon met in person, which resulted in John Dunn drawing up a proposal for a two-unit vehicle with a floor height of 300mm – a floor height unheard of at the time.

John Dunn diagram for Comeng

The design was presented to the Victorian Government in May 1982 and was well received, but the Chairman of the M&MTB, Dudley Snell, was sceptical – responding “if this idea is supposed to be so good, then why hasn’t anyone else thought of it”.

Comeng and Gerofi were given the go ahead by Crabb to produce a concept design for a low-floor vehicle, but because of the M&MTB the idea was not pursued further.

Instead two prototype B1 class high-floor light rail vehicles were ordered from Comeng, entering service in 1984-85, followed by an order for 130 B2 class trams which were delivered between 1987 and 1994.

Weston Langford photo

Politicians calling the shots

In 1988 the construction of the B2 class tram order well underway, and Minister for Transport Jim Kennan was talking up low-floor trams when asked about the International Light Rail Transport Conference being held in Melbourne that year.

The Met is recognised as a leader in the provision of light rail services. A number of topics are being canvassed at the conference that is being held at the Exhibition Building. The topics include new technologies in the provision of light rail services and the development of a low-floor light rail vehicle-a vehicle which has been developed experimentally in several European countries and which the Met hopes to emulate in Victoria.

Then in May 1989 the minister dropped a bombshell on Comeng – he’d just returned from a visit to Geneva, seen their brand new low-floor trams, and wanted to introduce similar vehicles to Melbourne. The minister had also decided not to call tenders but wanted to renegotiate the existing B2 class tram contract to feature low-floor trams.

Designer John Dunn was again engaged to do the design work spending 1989 coming up with the following design.

Artwork by Phil Belbin for John Dunn/ABB

Meanwhile the Public Transport Corporation, operator of the Melbourne tramways, had not been informed of these plans, and rejected the idea of a low-floor tram outright in November 1989. They were eventually convinced to allow the design work to continue, including the construction of a full-scale mockup.

Comeng diagram

Progress was slow, and in March 1990 Comeng was ready to make a commitment to the Minister for Transport that they would deliver the first tram in December 1990 if the PTC ceased delaying the project.

However it was not to be – in April 1990 a portfolio reshuffle saw Peter Spyker installed as the new Minister for Transport, and work on the project was paused pending a decision on whether to continue. A few weeks later it was decided to revert to the original contract and complete the remaining B2 class trams to the high-floor design, Comeng being compensated for the work done on the low-floor design, and the incomplete body shell and jigs were scrapped.

The total bill for this lost opportunity – $5.3 million.

Why not retrofit a high-floor tram?

With 130 near-new high-floor trams running around Melbourne and a need for a more accessible vehicle, in 1998 the Public Transport Corporation looked at a different solution – retrofitting a low-floor section in the middle of an existing tram!

Adtranz, the successor of Comeng, was approached to investigate the idea, and again John Dunn was engaged to do the design work. A 6.5 metres long module was decided upon, weight needing to be kept to a minimum to prevent overloading the existing traction motors. Inside there was space for ten fixed seats and six fold-up seats or two wheelchairs, with a floor height of 360 mm with an entrance step 310 mm above rail.

Diagram by John Dunn

However this proposal was again rejected – the PTC reassessed the proposal and considered that the converted trams would not be powerful enough to operate on steep grades, that the $700,000 cost per vehicle compared poorly to the $2 million a new low-floor vehicle cost, and the infrastructure at tram stops for the modified vehicles would likely be incompatible with that required to support purpose built low-floor vehicles.

So what did we eventually get?

It took until 2001 for Melbourne to finally see a low-floor tram – 36 Alstom Citadis trams designated as the C class.

Followed in 2002 by 59 Siemens Combino trams designated as the D1 and D2 class.

We then had to wait until 2013 for the next low-floor trams to arrive – 100 Bombardier Flexity trams, designated the E class.

And a borrowed idea

In 2019 the Rail Futures Institute released their ‘Melbourne Rail Plan‘, and included a familiar idea.

Given the cost of new trams, a cost-effective alternative may be to insert a centre DDA compliant low-floor module to increase their capacity over a 3 to 4-year program at an estimated cost of $250 million. Cost savings may be possible by recycling some key components from withdrawn Z and A class trams.

In the short term, this would increase the proportion of DDA compliant trams in the present overall fleet from 35% to 61%. With associated life extension works (being undertaken in any event), this would enable these 25-year old vehicles to continue in operation until the late 2030s. It would also defer the requirement for approximately 120 new G class trams by around 10 years with a net cost saving of approximately $400 million during the period to 2034.

Looking overseas – the first low-floor tram

Geneva, Switzerland was the first city with low-floor trams, when prototype Be 4/6 tram no. 741 entered service in 1984.

Photo by Alain GAVILLET from Chêne-Bougeries, Suisse, via Wikimedia Commons

It was followed by 46 production trams in 1987.

And retrofitted low-floor trams

Many cities around the world have retrofitted low-floor segments to their fleets of high-floor trams. Examples include:

Be 4/8 trams in Zürich, built in 1991-1992, low-floor section prototyped in 1999, and rolled out to the entire fleet in 2004-2005.

Photo by User:Iwouldstay, via Wikimedia Commons

The Kinki Sharyo SLRV in Dallas, built in 1996, lowfloor section prototyped in 2002, and rolled out to the entire fleet in 2008-2010.

Photo by Michael Barera, via Wikimedia Commons

There are plenty more examples around the world, but you get the idea.

Sources

• Comeng: A History of Commonwealth Engineering Volume 4, 1977-1985 (John Dunn)
• Comeng: A History of Commonwealth Engineering Volume 5, 1985-2012 (John Dunn)
• DDA exemption for Public Transport Corporation for Melbourne trams (Australian Human Rights Commission, 1999)
• Making Public Transport More Accessible for People Who Face Mobility Challenges (Victorian Auditor-General, 2009)
• Introducing low-floor trams to Melbourne, The Bellcord (Geoff Brown, 2019)
• Accessibility of Tram Services (Victorian Auditor-General, 2020)

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Melbourne’s missed opportunities for low-floor trams appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.