>>1241933>Z2Z2s are all retired mate, I think you mean Z3.
The capacity of the Z/A trams is not much of a problem because (a) most of their route length, there really aren't many passengers and (b) when there are a lot of passengers, like in the free tram zone, the frequency of trams makes up for the lack of capacity of individual trams. The only real failing other than accessibility I see in the older trams is the lack of A/C.
>brand new>implying brand new = betterEs have a reputation for being impossible to start smoothly, the floors have the slopes down to the doors in them. They also aren't real products of Australia like the Comeng trams.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDXarmyGyTMRead the description, you only really need to watch up to about 1:40 for the most important comments.
Also in terms of aesthetics, all the trams past B are ugly pieces of plastic, whereas all previous trams had a good aesthetic - the iconic W's wooden body as well as a nicer looking metal body on Z, A, B compared to modern plastic garbage. And they were actually built with Melbourne in mind and their interiors were maximum comfy (as long as you could get on board, which I'll admit was their failing). C class trams weren't built for Melbourne's narrow turning radii and lower standard of track maintenance than a modern euro light rail system, and they tend to rock around. D class easily have the least comfortable interior with those massive sandboxes(?) around the wheels and opposing seats so close you have to turn sideways or put your legs in between the other passenger's legs. D2 trams have serious noise issues as they make massive roaring sounds from poor adjustment as they get up to decent speed along route 6 past Chapel St. It's nigh impossible to get a seat on an E, because solving the capacity problem apparently means removing more seats on more trams and trains across melbourne. But yeah, continue to shill the new trams because accessibility.
