I think I'll have to defend the trains here, the demographics of the area
changed dramatically since both went tram. The first tram services were not
necessarily as well patronised as today. If the train had survived, they
would have been as well patronised as the trams are. You only have to look
at the rest of the system. I full well remember some 30? years ago when
evening trains were reduced to only one car open in a three car set. Now
six well filled cars operated on all lines. The demographics have changed
considerably all over ----- plus fuel has gone through the roof.

On 15 July 2012 15:41, davemcl_wellington <mcloughlin.dj@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I've seen some arguments (in The Age I think) that the trains should never
> have been replaced by the 96 and 109 trams, as the trams carry so many
> people that trains are justified on these routes.
>

But a lot of people wanted to go to other parts of Melbourne and with a
train arriving at Flinders-street it was so convenient for transfer.
Transferring at Spencer-street today is not as convenient.

>
> My retort is that the massive patronage growth is because of the trams and
> the urban redevelopment they provoked along their routes. I never rode on
> the trains but I did ride the new tram lines soon after they opened and
> their patronage was tiny. The Port Melbourne line in particular went
> through a wasteland of abandoned factories and warehouses. The Graham
> station in particular was hundreds of metres across wasteland from the
> nearest house, IIRC. Today it is qa high-density urban area that provides
> huge patronage for the frequent, fast trams.
>

Fast?? What about the level crossings and traffic lights once
Clarendon-street is reached. Nah, the trains would have handled it just as
well.

>
> My point is that discussion of the trains that preceeded the trams is
> highly relevant and very interesting.
>

Can't disagree with that statement.

--
David in Avenel.au
Just reporting the facts.