Citadis trams on Sydney L1 Dulwich Hill line plus Watch For Trams sign

[David McLoughlin]

Visiting Sydney in recent days, I noted the continued use of some Citadis trams on the L1 Dulwich Hill line. At least two Citadises were in use amidst first-model and second-model CAFS as I made a return trip along the entire line from Central Station.

You will remember that the Citadises were drafted (reluctantly) into service on this line after Transport for NSW discovered serious problems with the CAF trams previously used solely for this line, caused by the very tight curve from the Railway Colonnade into Hay Street. Sydney gunzels had warned this issue would arise because of the tight curve and the use of the rigid-truck trams which replaced the Variotrams that were designed for the curve.

The original (repaired) CAFS plus some new ones appear available for service, so I was delighted to see Citadises (my fave tram model) still being used on the L1 as well as the L2 and L3 for which they were bought. Does anyone know why this is? There should be ample CAFs for the L1 line. Is it so drivers have experience of using both models.

I also noted the trams go VERY slowly on the curve out of the colonnade, despite, IIRC, the curve having been rebuilt since the issue arose.

I also visited Parramatta to ride the new system there; it opened last December so this was my first time in Sydney since it opened. I was delighted to see  "Watch For Trams" signs at pedestrian crossings despite Transport for NSW insisting that Sydney's trams are "light rail" not trams. I understand the use of "trams" in such signs is a legal requirement (though one that doesn't seem to bother TfNSW on the L1, L2 and L3 lines which have lots of "light rail" signs.

Photo attached of a CAF passing a Watch For Trams sign in Church Street Parramatta on route L4.

Kia ora

David McL

[Matthew Geier]

On 16/7/25 13:30, David McLoughlin wrote:

>
> You will remember that the Citadises were drafted (reluctantly) into
> service on this line after Transport for NSW discovered serious
> problems with the CAF trams previously used solely for this line,
> caused by the very tight curve from the Railway Colonnade into Hay
> Street. Sydney gunzels had warned this issue would arise because of
> the tight curve and the use of the rigid-truck trams which replaced
> the Variotrams that were designed for the curve.
>

That wasn't what broke them. The Citadis don't like that curve either.

What broke them was the yawing at speed on the 'open' track systems -
the bogie would slam into the bogie 'bump stop'. This 'bashing' caused
fatigue cracks.

Exactly the same failure occurred in Birmingham and they don't have
'that curve', but they also run at speed on a former railway.

> The original (repaired) CAFS plus some new ones appear available for
> service, so I was delighted to see Citadises (my fave tram model)
> still being used on the L1 as well as the L2 and L3 for which they
> were bought. Does anyone know why this is? There should be ample CAFs
> for the L1 line. Is it so drivers have experience of using both models.
>

Because not all the CAF cars are available for service.

The repairs apparently caused failures elsewhere in the body. The trams
still yaw, so the stronger 'bump stops' just transferred the stress to
elsewhere in the body structure, which then started to crack.

> I also noted the trams go VERY slowly on the curve out of the
> colonnade, despite, IIRC, the curve having been rebuilt since the
> issue arose.

It was re-railed due to worn rails, it was not rebuilt. The co-incident
vertical and horizontal curves so hated by modern fixed bogie trams is
STILL there.

[bblun...@yahoo.com]

The track works around the Central loop appear to have been no more than replacement of the rails. No noticeable change to the alignments; all four corners of the loop have been done.

Yes, there is variance with the signs; there are even signs on some L1 level crossings to "Beware of trains".

Brian

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tramsdownunde...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/f27b7a96-bba1-41ca-84c0-d59bf36e3df9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Geoffrey Hansen]

Weren't the previous generation of trams eg R class also rigid in their design? 

Regards 

Geoffrey 

[David McLoughlin]

Brian wrote: 

> Yes, there is variance with the signs; there are even signs on some L1 level crossings to "Beware of trains".

I am always appalled to see the "Beware of trains" sign at the Glebe stop on the L1. This line and that stop used to have "tram stop" and similar signs, in the days before TfNSW took it over.

Geoffrey wrote: 

> Weren't the previous generation of trams eg R class also rigid in their design?

The Rs were bogie cars, same as the Melbourne Ws and Brisbane FMs.

[Matthew Geier]

On 16/7/25 13:48, Geoffrey Hansen wrote:
> Weren't the previous generation of trams eg R class also rigid in
> their design?

They were significantly shorter and had rotating bogies. The modern
artics in Sydney have fixed bogies so the whole body has to twist to
follow the track.


John Dunn altered the articulations on the Variotrams after the civil
construction error was noticed when he did a walk through during
construction. At that point it was still possible to alter the
Variotrams to fix the civil stuff up. He added the ability to twist to a
2nd articulation joint.

The Urbos and Citadis are taking the curve via play the secondary
suspension as they can not articulate in two dimensions at the same time.

A Citadis has already  popped out a suspension component while taking
that curve. (It didn't derail, just bottomed out)

[TP]

"Trams" and "Tramway" are the legal terms in the road rules. "Tram" includes light rail. So the signs legally have to say "trams". 

Tony P

(who, whenever somebody says "light rail", looks at the two rails and asks "which of them is the light one?")

[David McLoughlin]

Matthew wrote:

> What broke them was the yawing at speed on the 'open' track systems - the bogie would slam into the bogie 'bump stop'. This 'bashing' caused fatigue cracks.

Thanks Matthew.  From afar, I had recalled news items saying that the trams had cracked because of sharp curves, and I must have assumed that meant the Colonnade one, that being the sharpest.  See this SMH article:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/high-speeds-sharp-curves-contribute-to-cracked-trams-spanish-builder-20211212-p59gwd.html

[Matthew Geier]

Yep - according to CAF our trams broke because they were going too fast through curves laid out for steam standard goods engines.

Birmingham doesn't have a bad curve like ours, and theirs broke the same way - but in common with us, they have high speed running on a former railway built in the steam era.

That curve at the bottom of the Pitt St ramp wouldn't have helped things, but they always crawled through there anyway - take that too fast and you create a new route down Pitt Street. One of the Variotrams tried that (witness marks in the road :-)

The Birmingham CAFs yaw terribly too - I was heading somewhere with a UK friend on the Midland Metro and he asked was the violent shaking side to side 'normal'.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tramsdownunde...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/19848574-ea00-4dcb-9a5f-a879690cf3efn%40googlegroups.com.

[TP]

Running on the former goods line shouldn't have caused any problems, even for a tram with fixed trucks. The railway-standard curve radii are typically on the easy side of 200 metres, compared to 20 metres on that curve at Central. I believe the problems lie entirely with the trams, possibly largely to do with a failure to control yaw and poor manufacturing quality..

Tony P

[Richard Youl]

I may not often agree with Tony, but he sums it up nicely in the last three words – “poor manufacturing quality.“

Whoever heard of a tram falling apart in earlier days simply because the track was a bit rough? Nothing could equal the collapsing track with broken rail joints in the St Georges Road pre-1990 where the thrill of the fast run was much more exciting than the fear of derailing and hitting a span pole! One night a passenger told me he could hear me coming a long time before he could see me! And the trams never cracked up!

Richard

On 17 Jul 2025, at 3:22 pm, 'TP' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/5cacc3be-6824-4f4f-9ce7-26d626afc4c7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Geoff Olsen]

Running on the goods line did not bother single fixed truck tram 134s but it wasn’t too concerned about street running either. It used to squeal a bit on the curve between Casino and John street on the down. Railway standard special work did not agree with narrow flanges and larger that heavy rail back to back however.

 

The witness marks were there when we were scrubbing and the general opinion was that they were caused by the Unimog although no details were available.

 

Geoff O.