Sydney

[bblun...@yahoo.com]

Services on the L2/3 are currently running at reduced frequency “due to vehicle availability”. 

Timetables showing random gaps of between 5 and 15 minutes. 

Brian. 

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

[Matthew Geier]

They are also 'short working' trams turning back at Central, as the vehicles have been put into service with the APS battery disabled, so they can't run north of Town Hall. They are short working to central as there is the extra track there, so the set terminates a Central and waits there till the time it would depart central for Randwick/Kingsford had it run to the Quay and back.

A friend to drives the route says there are gaps of up to 20 minutes between services and the first service after a gap like that gets absolutely rammed full and gets further delayed while people try to cram on - to the point that the following tram is sitting just back from the stop waiting for people to stop trying to cram on and holding the doors open on the first tram.

A 'short working' L3 waiting at Central for its scheduled departure time. (2215+2218)

The flag poking out over the side of the tram is connected to the traction battery isolator - it's an external visual indication that the isolator is open. The drivers 'DDU' also puts up messages along the lines of 'HV battery fault'. I assume if the driver presses the 'battery' mode button, it will either be ignored or prompt a succession of 'angry' messages on the DDU screen along the lines of 'Please do not press that button again'. :-)

The trams doing the 'short' working have isolated or even missing HV traction batteries.

There are sufficient 'dead' APS sections (last week at least, including Bridge Street stop - so not as if the driver could coast over it!) that cars with defective traction batteries can't operate north of Town Hall.

--
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/326495035.1202832.1773696575539%40mail.yahoo.com.

[TP]

Holy moly what a mess. This is what happens when you give a bunch of incompetents the job of building and operating a tram system. The predictable things went wrong - like APS, using fixed bogie trams and dodgy tram manufacturers, but I wasn't expecting a fleet shortage with the number of trams they ordered for both L1 and L2/3. Are there still Alstoms running on L1? If so, why? Isn't the CAF fleet big enough for L1? How is there a shortage of Alstoms for L2/3?

Tony P

[Matthew Geier]

Citadis are still working on L1.

Rumor has it that some of the 'fixed' CAF cars have developed more cracks and had to be taken out of service again while they work out how to fix the fix.

4 cars that got trapped in floods on Anzac Pde last year are still out of service - apparently they are waiting for a complete set of parts to do all 4 at the same time. There is also back long of cars with minor defects that keep them out of service piling up at Randwick depot.

Basically both CAF and Alstom are having trouble keeping on top of maintenance for whatever reason. (Parramatta is so bad that they have altered the timetable to lower the number of cars required to run the services).

Unknown (to me) if this a parts supply problem, or a qualified technician recruitment problem.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/7ab4c335-2e9c-4e86-a4d9-203b0731c0dcn%40googlegroups.com.

[TP]

Before long we'll have the "light rail is too much trouble, they should have kept the buses" mob firing up again. What an absolute shambles.

Tony P

[TP]

If it goes on for too long, the various consortia in Sydney and Parramatta will fail to meet their KPIs and will be up for the sack. We'll still be stuck with the crappy trams and APS though.

Tony P

[Matthew Geier]

I assume the short workings to Central Charmers St are 'gaming' the SLA.
The service is only partially cancelled not fully canceled.

Also I expect the deal that got Citadis assigned to L1 work has been
exploited to avoid the car availability SLA. TfNSW took 4 of their
spares and assigned them to the other route. You can be sure
Transdev/Alstom covered themselves well.

The 'Great River City Light Rail' consortium can't pull that excuse -
although a not only have they had a lot of accidents, there has been a
significant amount of vandalism as well and they may be playing 'out of
our control' card for the number of vehicles out of service.

Parramatta has a lot of  'coupler riders' and while their Albert coupler
is folded up under a cover, that cover doesn't cope with a young adult
male standing on it. They break the cover and the 'dash' cover above it
(they try to hold on that panel or the windscreen wipers). When the
coupler cover breaks under the weight and they fall, they rip the next
panel off as well.

The tram is then out of service until all those panels are replaced. I
gather they ran out of spares.

I'd bet some one out at Camilia is begging to be allowed to use a
Bunnings fiberglass repair kit to fix those panels instead of waiting
for new replacements to arrive from Spain.

[TP]

But Labor promised no more imported public transport stock - they would all be built in Australia in future. Surely the Joe Cahill Memorial Tram Factory at Parramatta can supply these parts?

Tony P

[hun...@optusnet.com.au]

Not being a Sydney-slicker any more ... is there a cross-over at Town Hall on the wired section which would allow non-battery trams to operate beyond Chalmers Street down the Town Hall?

---

From: 'Matthew Geier' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 March 2026 3:23 PM
To: tramsdo...@googlegroups.com <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Sydney

 

--
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/02457b4f-fa71-465b-b0ba-3effb86474d2%40sleeper.apana.org.au.

[bblun...@yahoo.com]

Yes, there is a double cross over just south pf Bathurst St. Both tracks up to TH platforms are signalled for two way operations. 

Usually L2 trams terminate on the east platform and L3 on the west side. 

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/SY7P300MB043849DA18D99235C8A78BF9AA41A%40SY7P300MB0438.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Matthew Geier]

On 17/3/26 21:43, 'hun...@optusnet.com.au' via TramsDownUnder wrote:

Not being a Sydney-slicker any more ... is there a cross-over at Town Hall on the wired section which would allow non-battery trams to operate beyond Chalmers Street down the Town Hall?

Yes. Scissors crossover at Bathurst Street. But they have been lazy scheduling.

The trams in service with disabled batteries have been terminating at the 'back platform' at Central Chalmers then waiting there for the amount of time it would have taken them to go to Circular Quay from Central and return. They then depart into their timetabled slot as if they were running normally.

If they ran to Town Hall, one they would have to do a very quick change ends (or use the 'stepping back' technique) , they would have to immediately depart Town Hall to avoid blocking the line, they couldn't wait at Town Hall for time it would have taken them to run to Circular Quay and return, so all the vehicle and crew diagrams would have to be rejigged to account for the Town Hall short working.

They do have a template for turning BACK all services at Town Hall, but turning back just two sets out of however many are normally on the road would make for an 'interesting' exercise is diagramming.

[Peter Hyde]

Surely with coupled set operations on L2 /L3 there would be virtually no chance of both cars with defective batteries  being in a dead APS segment at the same time.

Wouldn't the powered one simply push or pull the other one?

Or am I missing something here?

Peter H

Sent from BlueMail

[TP]

I imagine all the batteries on all the trams have been disconnected while they investigate the problem. While in theory the trams could continue running the whole route using the APS as well, the latter is so unreliable they don't want to venture onto that section without batteries. The solutions in search of a problem have created their own problems.

Also pretty shameful that their operation is so slack that they can't confidently run trams to Town Hall and shunt them quickly enough.

Tony P

[Brian Blunt]

The service alert for reduced services has been extended through to 1st April. 

A quick glance through tomorrow’s schedule shows normal services, but I guess they will make it up as they go. 

There are often short notice closures of the APS section “ due to power supply issues, but they manage to keep services running to TH. Theoretically there is an 8 minute turnaround window for each line, and there might be occasional short delays getting through the crossovers. 

Brian 

Bblun...@yahoo.com

On 17 Mar 2026, at 22:41, 'TP' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



--
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/ec6c1d2e-7253-4cad-91d9-a73f40127875n%40googlegroups.com.

[TP]

The serious issue is that the reintroduction of trams in Sydney has been spectacularly successful and very popular, with annual patronage currently reaching 47 million, nearly a third of Melbourne's tram patronage. The number of bus trips into Sydney CBD has been reduced by a third as a result. The light rail is more reliable than the bus and suburban rail systems, but not as reliable as it should be, considering it's a modern system that runs entirely in its own lanes and ROWs. While I wouldn't expect it to reach the lofty heights of reliability of the metro and ferry systems, because it interacts with traffic lights, it should be a lot better than it is.

All those users who've grown to like the system (in spite of its slowness!) are going to become disillusioned if it starts to become more incident ridden. The system has already been devastatingly injured by the prolonged closure of L1 during the CAF failures, with patronage never so far having recovered to its former height on that line. (In a just world, the tram manufacturer should be compensating for that, but no doubt the lawyers stirred up the mud.) On the other lines, they've dabbled with off-wire systems that don't actually achieve anything, but extra weight, increased maintenance and increased risk of failure. 

If we get a government that cares again, it all needs a good shakeout, with a new, capable, operator, more suitable trams and some overhead strung up in those gaps.

Tony P

[hun...@optusnet.com.au]

Thank you, Brian.   Is any (regular) use made of this intermediate terminating point?   Is there a similar terminating provision for trams commencing from the Quay operating on battery only?

---

From: 'bblun...@yahoo.com' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 March 2026 9:50 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/1786807033.1874008.1773744631101%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Brian Blunt]

Not regular as such, but whenever there are major  events are planned in the northern part of the city, services will be tabled to terminate there. 

We suffer from semi regular protest marches in the area at weekends which can disrupt use of the section for varying periods. 

Brian 

Bblun...@yahoo.com

On 18 Mar 2026, at 09:30, 'hun...@optusnet.com.au' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/SY7P300MB0438DD05D94A58D1F181521BAA41A%40SY7P300MB0438.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[TP]

APS goes all the way to Circular Quay. I don't know whether the batteries have the capacity to power a tram all the way from Town Hall to Circular Quay and back. There is no provision for overhead battery top-up at the Quay, but I don't know whether the Alstom batteries can be in-motion charged.

In the absence of a turning loop, a third track/platform was built at the Quay to provide terminus capacity for 2 minute headways. This track should never, ever see a tram in it under four minute headways, but I gather from anecdotes that the operation gets out of sorts sufficiently for trams to be seen in this third platform from time to time. I can't imagine how the present operators would manage 2 minute headways to the Quay if called upon, but that's the long term plan as the city and patronage grows further. Like the metro, the system is designed to deliver vastly more capacity for future growth than is required at present, but it needs to run like a Swiss watch (i.e. a good European system) to accomplish that. The operation, the power system and the trams all need to be top notch for that goal. At present they're not.

Tony P

[hun...@optusnet.com.au]

Thanks Brian.   Why the professional "protest" meeting outside the Sydne Town Hall are permitted to continue is beyond me.

As per my previous query, can the battery trams from the Quay be turned back at or near the Town Hall, please?

---

From: 'Brian Blunt' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 March 2026 10:37 AM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/81C097B3-7745-4CC3-B487-293F0010CD09%40yahoo.com.

[Matthew Geier]

I gather they are not allowed to tow/push cars in passenger service. At any rate the driver can't just tow a dead car, the seals on mode switches have to be broken and tow mode selected on the main computer.

Doing any of that requires explicit permission from the OCC.

Not as if the driver could push the lead car off a dead APS segment and just have the rear (still powered car) push them forward by simply 'notching up' on the lead car.

Nothing a software update couldn't fix, but that would require accepting that your drivers could show good judgement and initiative. Such qualities appear to be frowned on by modern management.

--
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/5ef56564-02db-4453-9429-3356302ef840%40bigpond.com.

[Matthew Geier]

No - only batteries found to be at fault are disconnected. But they are so short of serviceable cars, they have to use these cars in service if the only fault is a dud battery pack. The majority of the fleet you see 'on the road' has active traction batteries.

--
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/ec6c1d2e-7253-4cad-91d9-a73f40127875n%40googlegroups.com.

[Matthew Geier]

They would have to shunt at Goulburn Street crossover.  I don't think such a move is permitted by the signalling system.

Note the traction batteries can run the tram for only a 100m or so. They are sized to get the trams off dead APS segments or at a pinch, to the next platform in the event of traction power failure.  They are not sized to run any significant distance.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/SY7P300MB0438D21C140450BBB9F379E6AA4EA%40SY7P300MB0438.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Brian Blunt]

There is no crossover at Goulburn St. Apart from TH, there is a single crossover near Wynyard. 

Brian 

Bblun...@yahoo.com

On 18 Mar 2026, at 11:53, 'Matthew Geier' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/2b91b573-6fdc-4404-8d30-c5a0962c0a93%40sleeper.apana.org.au.

[Greg Sutherland]

The batteries don't have that sort of capacity nor are they designed to provide continuing battery operation in regular service.

They were intended to be a "Safety feature" providing the tram with emergency power should the overhead and/or the APS power supply fail so that the tram could 'limp' to the next stop so that passengers could be "safely disembarked".  As far as I am aware the operating procedures do not provide for passengers to be disembarked between stops, hence the practice of locking in passengers. on failed trams.

The APS supply is continuing to experience regular failures of sections in the ground supply  distribution system.  In order to access and repair these sections safely the operation requires tram services across these sections to be shut down.  There are also problems caused by delays to replacements being received from overseas manufacturers.

In an attempt to avoid these shutdowns (lots of section failures) Transdev have set up the trams to automatically continue over failed sections operating off the emergency standby battery.  Over time the standby batteries fail or catch fire due to overload and/or excessive use.

Modern light rail systems in Dublin and Edinburgh which were constructed in the same era as the CSELR investigated the APS system and rightly rejected the APS as too expensive, too unreliable and providing an unacceptable adverse operational impact on tramway operations.  They found APS to be an Awfully Pricey System.

Reinstallation of the overhead supply system which the NSW tramways operated along George Street between Town Hall and Circular Quay  for more than sixty years is the obvious solution.

Greg

On 18-Mar-26 11:05 AM, 'TP' via TramsDownUnder wrote:

APS goes all the way to Circular Quay. I don't know whether the batteries have the capacity to power a tram all the way from Town Hall to Circular Quay and back. There is no provision for overhead battery top-up at the Quay, b when the tram mwaysfails to proceed.ut I don't know whether the Alstom batteries can be in-motion charged.

In the absence of a turning loop, a third track/platform was built at the Quay to provide terminus capacity for 2 minute headways. This track should never, ever see a tram in it under four minute headways, but I gather from anecdotes that the operation gets out of sorts sufficiently for trams to be seen in this third platform from time to time. I can't imagine how the present operators would  sections  continue to fail in service.  This means a operational shut down to enable safe access for maintenance personnelmanage 2 minute headways to the Quay if called upon, but that's the long term plan as the city and patronage grows further. Like the metro, the system is designed to deliver vastly more capacity for future growth than is required at present, but it needs to run like a Swiss watch (i.e. a good European system) to accomplish that. The operation, the power system and the trams all need to be top notch for that goal. At present they're not.

Tony P

Oew this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/0a376477-4a43-48e8-bd4e-f0b95d12af6fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Matthew Geier]

On 18/3/26 13:13, 'Greg Sutherland' via TramsDownUnder wrote:

>
> In an attempt to avoid these shutdowns (lots of section failures)
> Transdev have set up the trams to automatically continue over failed
> sections operating off the emergency standby battery.
>

That's a standard feature - I saw 305s in France doing the same thing -
I was watching the DDU and saw the battery mode icon activate with no
driver input.

(One of the cities in the Loire Valley region, I can't remember which,
both Angers and Orléans have APS)

>   Over time the standby batteries fail or catch fire due to overload
> and/or excessive use.
>

The batteries, in the Sydney cars at least, are aircraft start batteries
- they should be more than robust enough for this sort of abuse. But
there are 62 of the things up there - that's a LOT of bolted connections
between batteries. If any of those nuts rattle loose.....

[TP]

All the batteries a tram should need are what they've been using for the last 20-30 years - enough to get them past a dead section or around a depot. Apart from the cost and poor reliability, all that Sydney's George Street got from the "aesthetic" wire-free system is massive lamp/flag standards that might as well have been OHW stanchions anyway and an ugly striped effect of six "rails" along the mall. 

https://tinyurl.com/354ekdtm

Here's an OHW installation  through the historic centre of Bratsilava where the stanchions are smaller and discreet, on one side only and the tracks are less conspicuous on the pavement.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1555294888863005

Tony P

[hun...@optusnet.com.au]

Perhaps the time has come to tell  Clover that "we intend to extend the overhead all the way to the Quay" and that would solve the operational problems with the batteries.

---

From: 'Matthew Geier' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 March 2026 11:50 AM

To: tramsdo...@googlegroups.com <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Sydney

 

No - only batteries found to be at fault are disconnected. But they are so short of serviceable cars, they have to use these cars in service if the only fault is a dud battery pack. The majority of the fleet you see 'on the road' has active traction batteries.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/f37f7856-d4a1-44eb-8619-824434a5e1c0%40sleeper.apana.org.au.

[Matthew Geier]

On 18/3/26 13:13, 'Greg Sutherland' via TramsDownUnder wrote:
>

> The batteries don't have that sort of capacity nor are they designed
> to provide continuing battery operation in regular service.
>
> They were intended to be a "Safety feature" providing the tram with
> emergency power should the overhead and/or the APS power supply fail
> so that the tram could 'limp' to the next stop so that passengers
> could be "safely disembarked".  As far as I am aware the operating
> procedures do not provide for passengers to be disembarked between
> stops, hence the practice of locking in passengers. on failed trams.
>

One a couple of occasions where a fault got a tram stuck between
platforms, while the driver was going through the next steps with with
the OCC as per rules, the passengers let themselves out by the operation
of the emergency door releases. This of course caused a whole slew of
extra messages to appear on the diagnostic computer screen. The door
releases then need to be manually reset before they can get back to
diagnosing the original fault and getting limp mode active (if deemed
appropriate by the OCC).

Usually the driver just shuts everything off and waits for the Alstom
tech support crew to arrive.

[Geoff Olsen]

Hmmm you would have to deal with her rose coloured glasses firstJ

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/SY7P300MB04382E8A8C33D85575210397AA4FA%40SY7P300MB0438.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[TP]

That used to be a frequent passenger pastime on Sydney's old heavily unionised government buses, where a driver would often refuse to open a rear door " 'cos rules". Suddenly a hand would appear above the impatient crowd and slide the door release and the crowd would pour out, accompanied by a torrent of abuse from the driver. In the immediate post-tram era, Sydneysiders did not always take well to the silly constraints of bus travel.

Tony P

[Tony Galloway]

Look at the southern end of George St - do the wires there “blight” the street?

I’ve seen no weeping aesthetes grieving over their presence, even as they end right outside the cathedral and town hall. 

I reckon the Person to Blame for Clover’s wireless fixation is one Peter Newman, always a sucker for shiny new gimmicks, who told her “trams don’t need wires”, without any consideration of the operating costs or reliability problems. 

Since then, he has moved on to touting “trackless trams” (big buses, like that joke in Brisbane), which says it all about Newman’s lack of basic technological knowledge.

APS was invented because Bordeaux wanted to use slotted conduit like its old system had, but that was deemed ”unsafe” so APS was devised, which is a new version of the old stud contact system which was another expensive and failure prone substitute for “ugly” overhead. Bordeaux has had problems with its APS, and with the all-APS system in Rio de Janeiro now ten years old it’d be interesting to know how reliability is there.

The other problem of course is a proprietary system like APS or the CAF charging systems in Newcastle and Parramatta lock in the original vendor as the future supplier of rolling stock. As the Melbourne E and G classes show, Alstom and even CAF elsewhere, offer better products than the rigid truck things Sydney is stuck with, but that’s not the point.

The Hague's latest choice for new trams is the Stadler Tina, after buying Siemens Avenios and not wanting more. The Gold Coast, Adelaide and Melbourne could choose an alternative like that and Stadler offered to build factories here in the past. But with the Alstom/ CAF patent lock-ins that’s not an option for Sydney.

Act in haste, repent at leisure - so Sydney.

A rigorous audit of the APS failure costs compared to the cost of non-routine overhead repairs would state mathematically why the APS has to go, along with the CAF battery/supercap operations. And while they’re at it a look at why tram availability is so poor wouldn’t hurt.

Tony

-- 
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/efc82612-f923-47a8-b837-87c4e16e1474n%40googlegroups.com.

[TP]

The southern end of George St certainly is an interesting case if you compare with the streetview I posted above of the northern end. 

https://tinyurl.com/mjkrsnb

Those huge, ugly lamp standards are still there, but in this case they also support the OHW which you struggle to see against the background. Looking down at the ground, the tram rails are much less visually obtrusive when they don't have that thick APS strip between them.

That wireless/trackless campaign was quite damaging for several years and isn't over yet. The Perth experiment vaporised when they saw what those guided buses were doing to the road pavement. Hopefully there will be studies of the cost/benefits for trams in due course. There have been similar studies for electric buses that prove that trolleybuses are the most cost-effective solution. 

Some 15 years ago, I asked somebody at Škoda what they thought of the wireless/battery trend and he said they considered it an economic nonsense that added weight to the vehicles, affecting the passenger capacity. But, like other manufacturers, they have to go with the flow to stay in the business. Škoda was one of the pioneers of having batteries on board trams and trolleybuses, but originally for more pragmatic reasons (not letting the vehicle be stranded). It wasn't the original intention to add elephantine weight to vehicles in order to run them completely off batteries. Apart from the reasonable compromise of in-motion charging for short sections, it has all got very out of hand, especially with standard buses losing a quarter of their passenger capacity to make way for the weight of the batteries.

Tony P

[Andrew Highriser]

Don't they put the batteries on the bus roof? From what I have seen, that's where they are. Maybe the drive system takes away passenger capacity? I don't really know. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/0a1eb276-1c76-45ce-957b-e9f51b4f4b32n%40googlegroups.com.

[TP]

In a low floor bus like the Custom Denning Element or the Volvo BZL, the batteries are on the roof. In a low-entry bus (with stairs and raised rear floor inside), like all the Chinese battery buses, they're a combination of under the floor and on the roof.

The drivetrain/motor in an electric bus (trolley or battery) was typically in the centre via a diff on the rear axle with high floor buses. With low floor buses it is located off to one side under the seats in the rear section of the bus, with the diff being offset on an inverted portal axle.

It's not the space taken by the batteries that's the issue, it's their weight that adds to the axle load and, since maximum axle load is restricted by regulation, the number (weight) of passengers has to be reduced so that, combined with the weight of the batteries, the gross weight and axle loads of the bus don't exceed the regulated limit. It's to do with keeping the roads from being destroyed prematurely. 

Trams aren't entirely immune despite their tracks. Manufacturers try to minimise the axle load so that the tram doesn't impose excessive wear on the tracks. Batteries on board definitely don't help in that objective.

Tony P

[Andrew Highriser]

Thank you. I suppose batteries on the roof make a bus or tram top heavy. But I am sure the risk is calculated and meets standards. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/d2b76d25-ebec-438e-8263-7f2452c73886n%40googlegroups.com.

[TP]

There's plenty of weight down below with passengers on board. If it was a concern, a double decker would be more of a concern.

Tony P