It is a downgrade when a tram replaces a train, as happened with the Port
Melbourne and St Kilda train lines. I don't blame those in charge at the
time but it certainly increased travel times if you compare trains to
trams/light rail.

It was population growth in inner suburbs, higher population density that
led to the need for very long trams with a high frequency rate on route 96
and pre COVID overcrowding on the shorter C1 trams on route 109 to Port
Melbourne. I suggest trams on those routes are moving more people to those
destinations than trains have since post WWII. It is all about population
growth and tourism over the last decade or so in St Kilda and Port
Melbourne and not to do with the service offered. Though a quick train trip
from both places would be better for many locals. Yes, the tram 96 was well
extended over the train and made better for many than the fast St Kilda
train for locals but not so for those at the former intermediate train
stations, and nor those on the train from Port Melbourne.

Andrew.

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 at 20:14, 'Brent Efford' via TramsDownUnder < tramsdownunder@...> wrote:

> What do you mean by "downgrading railways to tramways (tram-trains)" Tony?

> Can you give examples where introducing trams onto railway infrastructure

> has lowered capacity or patronage?

> True tram-train operation – Karlsruhe, Mulhouse, Sheffield-Rotherham etc

> etc – retains the availability of the railway for heavy rail operations as

> well – so is hardly a "downgrading". As far as I am aware, all the examples

> of complete conversion of railway to light rail (e.g. St Kilda and Port

> Melbourne) has resulted in greatly increased patronage, if only because the

> tramway normally provides a much larger catchment, extending beyond the

> former railway at one or both ends, as in Melbourne. (Of course many former

> railway lines converted to tramway had no passenger service anyway, as in

> Sydney.)

>

> Brent Efford

>

> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 3:15:14 PM UTC+12 TP wrote:

>

>> You're quite correct Mal and that's all well and good, but the tramway

>> infrastructure isn't being sweated in sync with this trend. When you've

>> gone to all the trouble and cost of laying rails in the ground, you

>> shouldn't underutilise the investment by operating it with vehicles no

>> bigger than an articulated bus. This is the foolishness that underlies such

>> projects as the Brisbane busways - massively expensive infrastructure, low

>> capacity vehicles. Downgrading railways to tramways (tram-trains) in some

>> parts of the world seems to me to be part of the same concerning trend. The

>> world's population is growing, not shrinking. I would think some close

>> investigation of why some Melbourne tram corridors are underutilised should

>> be done and planning undertaken to ensure that they're used to their

>> potential. Something is falling short in spite of the increased

>> densification. Increased density yet low patronage don't add up. I remain

>> of the belief that investing in 24 metre trams is a huge, very

>> short-sighted mistake for a city of Melbourne's population and expected

>> rate of growth. Capacity-wise, it's no better than what the Brisbane

>> "metro" offers and we all laugh at that.

>>

>> Tony P

>> On Thursday, 22 July 2021 at 12:31:24 UTC+10 Mal Rowe wrote:

>>

>>> On 22/07/2021 11:40, TP wrote:

>>> > That seems to me to be the planning difference between Sydney and

>>> > Melbourne. Sydney sweats its transport infrastructure. Melbourne

>>> > wastes it with an indifferent attitude of oh well there aren't many

>>> > people using it, let's downsize the vehicles. The people who suffer

>>> > are the ones who have to find a home out in the bundooks because there

>>> > isn't enough housing in the inner areas.

>>> >

>>> Sorry Tony, the figures don't support your view.

>>>

>>> According to https://profile.id.com.au/australia/about?WebID=260

>>> Greater

>>> Melbourne has a population density of 5.17 persons per hectare and on a

>>> related page, Greater Sydney is quoted as 4.34 persons per hectare.

>>>

>>> Melbourne's population has been growing more rapidly than Sydney's and a

>>> large proportion of the growth is in urban infill - especially along

>>> tramways.

>>>

>>> There's an interesting animated map at:

>>>

>>> https://chartingtransport.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/melbourne-population-density-2006-2011-20163.gif

>>>

>>> It shows both infill (which will increase the density) and urban sprawl

>>> which has the opposite effect.

>>>

>>> As a local in the middle of the north west tramways I can assure you

>>> that there is plenty of infill.

>>>

>>> See the attached pic. Since I made that photo three more (much larger)

>>> housing towers have been completed at Moonee Ponds.

>>>

>>> The introduction of the E class to West Coburg and West Preston are

>>> needed because of the substantial increase in urban density along these

>>> routes.

>>>

>>> Mal Rowe - fact checking

>>>

>>>

>>> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

> "TramsDownUnder" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email totramsdownunder+unsubscribe@....

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/5374143d-aa52-418e-9e75-e7f99f3fc797n%40googlegroups.com

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/5374143d-aa52-418e-9e75-e7f99f3fc797n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

> .

>