With that Oakland "streetcar", er, "light rail", you wouldn't want to be
waiting to cross the road!
Tony P
On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 10:45:44 UTC+10a...@... wrote:
> Just combine train capacity with tram convenience - easy peasy! :
>
> [image: Key_22_Bway_Mar1937_RD]
>
> Everything on New Zealand railways is “tram sized” due to the very limited
> loading/structure gauge, it’s why their J and K class steam locos look big,
> till you notice the size of the cabs on them.
>
> Tony
>
> On 24 Jul 2021, at 9:20 am, TP histor...@...> wrote:
>
> I take your point Brent. As you would know, a line has a potential maximum
> capacity based on a combination of the minimum headway and the maximum size
> of vehicles that it can carry. Train typically wins on that basis because
> you can get larger-capacity consists and headways that are at least as
> close as a modern tram operation - plus typically being faster. Beyond
> that, there are very many individual situations in which the situation
> could be reversed and I quite acknowledge that. After all, the old Sydney
> tram system achieved just that with the crazy intensity of its operation.
> In modern times, with various constraints that we didn't have in old times,
> the potential of trams is much more constrained, but often you can make
> better use of them than using trains. Horses for courses for each
> individual issue to be addressed on its merits.
>
> Tony P
>
> On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 09:08:37 UTC+10brent....@... wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Tony, I don’t understand.
>>
>> Why “*necessarily* means a downgrade in line capacity”? All the examples
>> I can think of (and there aren’t many) have resulted in an increase in
>> patronage, whatever the theoretical capacity might have been. This is
>> principally (a) because a CBD-edge stub terminal – itself a major
>> constraint on capacity – is replaced by 'direct through service’ through
>> the CBD, naturally increasing the ease of use for more people (“ease of use
>> creates use”), and (b) the catchment of the service is enlarged – more
>> potential customers.
>>
>> If you are thinking just of vehicle size – it all depends! In Wellington,
>> our ‘Matangi’ EMUs are only modern tram-size – 42m x 2.7m – operated as
>> single units inter-peak, on an increasingly-frequent timetable – 20
>> minutes, soon to be 15 minutes. The big capacity constraint (and deterrent
>> to patronage) is the CBD-edge stub terminal, which extending via light rail
>> and tram-train would overcome. Something I harp on about in my KiwiTram
>> newsletter (next one out v soon), and elsewhere.
>>
>> Brent Efford
>> NZ Agent, Light Rail Transit Assn
>>
>> On 23/07/2021, at 10:59 PM, TP histor...@...> wrote:
>> I think you've summarised it well Brent. Of course I'm referring to where
>> a train service is replaced by a tram service, which naturally means a
>> downgrade in line capacity - not necessarily patronage, that depends on
>> individual situations.
>>
>> Tony P
>>
>> On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 20:14:34 UTC+10brent....@... 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 a topic in the
>> Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tramsdownunder/3ddhyAaFLAM/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>tramsdownunde...@....
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/0e649fe2-94c9-433d-a6c9-4cd7e46b5616n%40googlegroups.com
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/0e649fe2-94c9-433d-a6c9-4cd7e46b5616n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
>> .
>>
>>
> --
>
> 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/cc509785-5aa7-4b5e-aab4-1ba11c6f4813n%40googlegroups.com
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/cc509785-5aa7-4b5e-aab4-1ba11c6f4813n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> .
>
>
>