More info on Melbourne's G class

[Mal Rowe]

See: https://copamate.com/rail/g-class-trams/

These people provide engineering services including for Alstom's Dandenong facility.

They say in part:

The G Class is based on Alstom’s globally successful Flexity 2 platform, a tram system already in operation in regions such as Blackpool (UK) and Queensland’s Gold Coast. 

However, the Melbourne variant is heavily customised, a bespoke solution tailored to the city’s complex, mixed-traffic tram network.

They even own up to the 'not to be mentioned' reason for skipping an F class.

Mal Rowe - looking forward to these trams and hoping they ride as well as a B

[TP]

I don't know where they get the notion that it's based on the Flexity 2 when its platform is clearly a descendant of the completely different Flexity Classic/ Flexity Swift. The Flexity 2 is a fixed-truck tram in five sections including two suspended modules. The Classic platform is a three module tram of the same length with four swivelling bogies, two of them under the centre module. This variant of that platform (in full 30 metre form which these can be expanded to) splits the centre module into three short modules, with two of those having fixed trucks underneath and one suspended module in between.

Tony P

(who has wasted plenty of time over the years trying to make sense of tram manufacturers' word salads)

[Matthew Geier]

On 27/5/25 17:55, 'TP' via TramsDownUnder wrote:
> I don't know where they get the notion that it's based on the Flexity
> 2 when its platform

I suspect the systems package (traction converters, control computers,
etc) are based on the Flexity 2 platform and they are ignoring the fact
that the mechanical base is from a different family line.

I would bet their own internal documentation is unclear of the family
line because of this - some of the documents will say Flexity Swift and
others say Flexity 2, depending on what part of the tram the document is
about. And I would not be surprised if the volume of electronics and
computer systems documentation far exceeds that of the chassis and bogie
mechanical documentation.

[TP]

Perhaps they could call it something different like the "Flexity Mongrel".

Tony P

[Matthew Geier]

On 28/5/25 15:18, 'TP' via TramsDownUnder wrote:
> Perhaps they could call it something different like the "Flexity Mongrel".
>

Alstom have a product naming problem - the new Paris T1 trams have been
described as X05 models - but they have rotating leading bogies, so they
are quite mechanically different from the existing Citadis 405s that
RATP already have on other lines. But despite the very different bogie
layout, they probably do have the same electronics systems package as
the Citadis 405s on the other lines. And probably have the same or
similar articulation components, dampers, etc and many interchangeable
parts with their 305 and 405 siblings.

(Although  I just found an Alstom PR that describes the new T1 trams as
type TW20)

But again due to many common components and systems, the model naming
will get blended and confused.

[TP]

Yes, Alstom has taken a leaf out of the Škoda book with the TW20. This would have been better for Melbourne, removing the bogie out of the end saloons and putting it under the driver cabs, thus enabling more aisle space in the saloon. I imagine the G class design development started too early to take into account the TW20.

Never mind, next time.

Tony P

[TP]

https://rollingstockworld.com/lrv/alstom-releases-new-modification-of-citadis-x05-for-paris/

Tony P