On 4/12/24 15:38, 'Tony Galloway' via TramsDownUnder wrote:
> But, but, but - standardisation doesn't matter.
>
> Just ask the "experts".
>
'We don't want to set prescriptive standards as we want the market to be
able to offer innovative solutions'.
TfNSW are the ideal customer :-)
Each vendor gets to supply systems full of parts only THEY can supply in
the future. Guaranteed future income.
The bogies on the Sydney Urbos 3 can not be put under a Newcastle Urbos
100 as CAF changed (for the better I hope) the electrical connections
between the bogie and the body. There may be mechanical differences too,
but the different connectors on the motors were some what obvious - so
even with in the supposed same model of tram, parts are not interchangeable.
I do not know if the 4 new Urbos 100s supplied to supplement the 12
Urbos 3 in Sydney have bogies compatible with the old Urbos 3 or they
have the latest Urbos 100 interfaces, thus requiring separate spares
from their older siblings.
Given TfNSWs track record on 'standardisation' I suspect they are
different :-)
Given how long CAF are have been building Urbos 3/100s how did the
Parramatta variant end up with braking issues ?. Not the first time CAF
have built a 7 segment version or fitted traction batteries. There's
nothing new or unique there!
--
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 tramsdownunder+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/7b238033-9e35-4385-9226-4c1f79483178%40sleeper.apana.org.au.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.