I'd only raise the point Andrew that the E class isn't a very long tram,
it's a standard tram nowadays. Even cities that still possess traditional
(approx) 15 metre trams typically run them in coupled sets to form a 30
metre consist. It's because of population/patronage growth and also because
the articulated bus now does the job of the 15 metre tram on a more
cost-effective basis.
Tony P
On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 22:36:20 UTC+10andrewh...@... wrote:
> 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
> <#m_5593522508594641693_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 at 20:14, 'Brent Efford' via TramsDownUnder <
>tramsdo...@...> 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 totramsdownunde...@....
>> 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
>> .
>>
>