Most if not all Melbourne short workings had ceased by the time I started in 1987. Certainly South Melbourne had none.
I heard that the reason for this was that people towards the end of lines complained that they were getting an inferior service, so to shut them up there were no more short workings. They were all extended to the terminus.
I'm not saying that short workings are a bad idea but more likely politically unacceptable.
Perhaps others more familiar with Melbourne can comment here.
Regards,
> On 26 Mar 2017, at 10:24 am, 'Hunslet'hunslet@... [TramsDownUnder] TramsDownUnder@...> wrote:
>
> The most suitable way for intermediate terminations is for a “middle road” terminating track. Even Sydney Trains now follows this procedure, thus allowing a terminating train to reverse in a middle road between the down and up tracks so that following through services are not affected. This could be undertaken at suitable intermediate locations, with each (say) second service proceeding straight through.
>
> Two cars could depart Central together – the first one showing “FIRST SETDOWN LILYFIELD” while the second would follow as the sweeper service. By the time it got to its terminating point at Lilyfield, the following through service would be close to catching up. The through service could stop to pick-up at intermediate points to (say) Haymarket.
>
> On the up journey, the Dulwich Hill car could still stop all stops as the long distance passengers are already on board and seated. The sweeper would follow immediately from Lilyfield.
>
> The reversing procedure at Lilyfield could the trialled by using the existing stabling siding at that location, thus allowing for the driver to change ends and “wait time”.
>
> Of course, another short term solution would be to bring back the best of the withdrawn cars from Penrith!
>
> Hunslet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:TramsDownUnder@... [mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com]
> Sent: Sunday, 26 March 2017 6:50 AM
> To:TramsDownUnder@...
> Subject: RE: [TramsDownUnder] Re: IWLR stuff - ads, delays and special work.
>
>
>
>
>
> A while ago I spoke to the author of the IWLR timetable, whom I know (and that person is not to blame for anything as it's under strict direction of TfNSW!). They told me that it was not possible to short-work some trams to Lilyfield because the time and conflict of shunting trams there means it would interfere with trams running further to Dulwich Hill.
>
>
>
> As for Watsons Bay line, I did post a Keenan photo some time ago of three trams banked up while another reversed at Double Bay! I think the shunted short-workings on the Watsons Bay line were not a matter of much choice due to land-space restrictions. At Kings Cross (for a while) and Rose Bay, the trams were able to reverse on a separate siding off the main line, but Double Bay was just a plain nuisance that couldn't be rectified.
>
>
>
> I prefer the double track on a single platform solution at Dulwich Hill over a balloon loop Dudley (at least as an immediate solution), because on the loop you need to get the trams to a point on the second half of the loop (as at Central) so that there's room to stack trams behind. The only way you can get really close to the railway station at Dulwich Hill and maximise passenger convenience is with a stub. If with the new metro they can do an entrance at the western end of the station, that would completely change the parameters of course.
>
>
>
> Tony P
>
>
> ---InTramsDownUnder@..., <noelreed10@...> wrote :
>
> On Saturday, 25 March 2017 5:42 PM,
>
>
>
> Does everyone travelling by tram on the IWLR need to go all the way to Dulwich Hill ?
>
>
>
> The original Sydney tramways had many short workings so that only a proportion of the trams leaving the city went all the way to the end of the tram route. Are there regular short workings on the IWLR ?
>
>
>
> As an example, the Watsons Bay line had regular short workings to Kings Cross, Double Bay, Dover Road [Rose Bay] and Vaucluse with several others for occasional use.
>
> Noel Reed.
>
>
>