Success would be its contribution to the urban transport task by moving as
many and as high a percentage of people as possible as efficiently as
possible, but there are other measures too. It's not simple enough to make
a bald, definitive statement. I must say that after some 50 years of
researching and writing history, I wouldn't choose a title and subtitle
like that unless it was very firmly evidence-based (and that would require
detailed worldwide research which I have found, in the case of tramways,
takes many years to uncover) - unless one was being tongue-in-cheek,
provocative or ironic.
The claim to being the oldest (presumably defined as continuous and still
extant) system is easily found to be wrong, which then leads the reader to
ask, if that's wrong, what else is? The other problem is that promoting
incorrect information or claims often leads to them being accepted as
"fact" and that can then require a lot of overturning, especially when
commercialised, like Siemens' claim of producing the world's first electric
tram, or just nostalgic like that old chestnut about the Sydney O class
being the largest class in the world/in one city (take your pick). It's
possibly a book that I'd buy if the title didn't set off alarm bells.
Tony P
On Sunday, 9 December 2018 20:56:33 UTC+11, Richard Youl wrote:
>
> Most successful, Eh?
>
> Success is a rather wishy washy word so one has to wonder, what yardsticks
> were used to reach this conclusion? Let’s look at a few possibilities.
>
> Most track? Yep.
>
> Fastest at relaying track? Yep
>
> Best method of laying track (concrete up to sleeper tops? Yep.
>
> Good service frequency? Yep
>
> Smoothest railhead producing minimal noise? Yep.
>
> Iconic? Yep.
>
> Loved by motorists? I won’t bet my house on that one!!
>
> Heaps of untapped potential? Yep.
>
> Potential ever likely to be tapped? Next joke please...
>
> Smoothest special work, (crossovers, junctions, H crossings? Nope (There
> are probably worse examples in impoverished former Eastern Blok countries).
>
> ‘Automatic’ points which always work? Nope.
>
> Most tramcars? Probably not.
>
> Highest percentage of lowfloor tramcars (excluding tramways less than 50
> years old)? Probably not.
>
> Fastest journey times? Nope.
>
> Best traffic light priority? Abysmal, but Adelaide is worse 😒
>
> Technology being used to speed trams? Nope. Hopeless. No interest in this..
>
> Let me give an example.
>
> Before driver-only ruined services in the early 1990s, Sunday mornings and
> all evenings, the running time from East Brunswick to St Kilda Beach (and
> the same going back) was 40 Minutes. Plus 5 minutes recovery time/layover
> with the result that we left each terminus every 90 minutes. This was not
> difficult to do and a late departure due to a late arrival was rather rare.
> And the only location I remember having a ‘7 second T light’ between
> traffic light phases to assist trams was Spencer St at Flinders St. My last
> ride on the 96 early this year revealed just a few more of these useful
> tools.
>
> So how does the 96 look today, considering it is held up as a shining
> example of an important Light Rail line running at its best, and often
> touted as getting priority upgrades, (but heavens knows when).
>
> To give the 96 the best hope for a fast run, I chose the after-midnight
> services as the least likely to have delays from passengers, road traffic
> etc. The 3:01am from St Kilda Beach takes an uninspiring 47 minutes to East
> Brunswick, 7 minutes longer than we took 27 years earlier, despite ripping
> out a number of city and possibly other tram stops.
>
> At 9:07pm the journey takes a staggering 53 minutes as opposed to our 40
> minutes. I know that today there are more people riding and more traffic,
> but.......
>
> And you don’t have to remind me that the route is now 50 metres longer 😄
>
> A sign of success? I think not.
>
> See the timetable extract below.
>
> Anyway, Good Luck to Aymeric. He’s sure to get plenty of sales despite the
> above 😊
>
> (Ducking for cover 😉)
>
> Regards,
>
>
>