You are correct Bob and the proof has been the popularity of the service, both of these lines carry far more than what was carried on the trains. The 96 in particular.
--- InTramsDownUnder@..., "Bob Pearce" <frerrick@...> wrote: >
> Hi all,
> I was also under the impression that one of the great persuaders for the
> train to tram conversion, was that the trams could and would deliver the pax
> right in to the heart of the city rather than on the outskirts (if it can be
> described as such) at Flinders St from where either shank's pony, or a tram
> ride was needed to get further into or closer to the place of employ.
> Bob in Perth
> From:TramsDownUnder@... [mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of espee8800
> Sent: Sunday, 15 July 2012 2:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Re: Port Melbourne
> 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 have been replaced by the 96 and 109 trams, as the trams carry so many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
> 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.