>

> There will always be blurred boundaries.

>

It is impossible to separate the Canberra tram from the Canberra bus
network: the same management, politics and ticketing, and shaped to blend.
Of course, we don't post about the Canberra buses as vehicles.
Queensland, which got the grammar wrong with 'tilt' train (correctly
tilting train) went off the planet with 'metro' (a busway, not even
guided). Again, we won't talk about the vehicles as vehicles, but we have
to talk about the service as a service and how it interfaces with the rest.
I was mauled for my early posts about energy supply, but it is a vital part
of our traction, and exploded from my prophecies to become an election
issue. The public is more worried about domestic costs, and that dominates
newspapers.
After that attack, I leave the items with yahoo transport down under.
I was also mauled for the bribing of passengers during unnecessary and
badly-implemented replacement of heavy rail with buses for management
convenience. That was simply a passing phase: management is now even
worse, and knows that it can get away with anything without bribery.
Trams as such are rather a non issue in newspapers, and didn't feature in
recent elections. The main commenting has been negative, about delays,
disruption and costs (Sydney and Canberra). However, Canberra Times has
muted its stance with stage one open, and seems to be supporting stage 2.

Re trolleybuses, Quito (Ecuador) had dual diesel and overhead. The hills
were steep, and the overhead was weak. Diesel often supplemented
electric. The overhead was failure prone, and diesel kept the service
running.

Also re battery buses: what happened to supercapacitors? They were going
to save electric transport, and satisfy people who didn't like wires.

All urban transport, electric or otherwise, has a common bond: united
against the private motor car. That shows with modern management
structures and ticketing systems. Long gone are the 1920s, when VR and
M&MTB fought and competed. Outer-urban buses have to be seen as an adjunct
of rail spines.
In turn, that brings in the role of urban ferries. We shouldn't be writing
about the vessels as vessels, but the services as services should come
under the 'government policy' clause in the faq. They are part of an urban
network and urban ticketing. In Sydney, the various harbour and Parramatta
River services; in Brisbane along and across the river; in Melbourne
Portarlington; in Perth across the Swan (ie what would be called rpt in
airline parlance, not tourist services).

A further aspect which this group should have the wisdom to acknowledge is
the close relationship between urban transport and urban planning.
Transport exists to meet a plan, not just to provide us with a chance to
take pretty pictures.
Regrettably, most of the railway hobby looks only at the pictorial aspect,
and not the justification for having railways at all.
Let them live at 'Thomas' level. This group should be working more at the
level of Transit Australia, which was a maturing of Electric Traction.

A penultimate thought: No more disintegration. Internet in all of its
branches is filled with mini groups, succeeding only in burying knowledge
and not sharing it at all. That is conspicuously true of the railway
hobby. Even trams were not immune. Peter caved into online complaints,
and created TramsPacificRim. I disagreed with the idea, but did
contribute. The complainers contributed nothing, and it languished.
Instead, TDU embraced the very topics about which they had complained,
giving strength.

I sense that the change from yahell to google has resulted in a lowering of
participation. However, that may simply be coincidental with a drop in
real news from the Melbourne system, and a shift into spin and politics
elsewhere, combined with an ageing membership. Many lurkers may simply
have taken stock of their enthusiasm (or lack of) and used the opportunity
to make the break. TDU did well to defect: through malice or incompetence,
yahell is disintegrated even worse now than then.

Roderick