I dunno, it’d be shorter than waiting for the pedestrian signal at any crossing in Sydney.
And more interesting to watch than the endless parade of mobile scrap metal on its journey from the dealer's showroom to the wrecking yard.
Tony
> On 24 Jul 2021, at 12:54 pm, TP historyworks@...> wrote:
>
> 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! :
>
>
>
> 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...@... <applewebdata://ED24A5D0-D12A-49DC-B0B1-0C4BA30116C7>> 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....@... http://me.com/ 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....@... http://me.com/ 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 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 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 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tramsdownunder/3ddhyAaFLAM/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email totramsdownunde...@... <>.
>> 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...@... <applewebdata://ED24A5D0-D12A-49DC-B0B1-0C4BA30116C7>.
>> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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@... mailto:tramsdownunder+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/cff3fee8-b31a-456f-927f-da3e9798531an%40googlegroups.com https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/cff3fee8-b31a-456f-927f-da3e9798531an%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer.