Pardon my ignore, Tony, but what is “BITRE”?

David

> On 25 Apr 2022, at 9:12 pm, TP historyworks@...> wrote:

>

> Tram patronage growth has also stagnated since 2016 in spite of relentless continuing population growth, though passenger km continued to grow. I suspect fleet capacity limitations, but it is also part of a general trend in Melbourne public transport lately. (Ignore the covid downturn at the end of the charts.)

>

> https://chartingtransport.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/image-29.png

>

> https://chartingtransport.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/image-17.png

>

> I wouldn't call the Melbourne system a shadow though!

>

> Overhead wires still have a hell of a lot in their favour, but the benefits of battery augmentation are unarguable. The problem arises when reliance on batteries goes too far, then you have issues of weight (the enemy of any vehicle design), downtime and range. Nothing is black and white. All systems have their pros and cons. The important thing is attaining the best solution for each unique, individual case.

>

> Tony P

>

> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 19:49:44 UTC+10 Mick Duncan wrote:

> Gday Brent, All

>

> Well for one,many routes now have twice the headway or worse in the arvo peak

>

> Some routes had a 3 min peak headway in the MMTB days

>

> Cheers, Mick

>

>

> On 24/04/2022 9:53 am, 'Brent Efford' via TramsDownUnder wrote:

>> I do see a lot of weird things on TDU and most I don't bother to comment on – even as they become embedded in the enthusiasts' psyche and become required gunzel wisdom (like the sanctity of overhead wires, for example). But, really, Paul – by what measure is the Melbourne tram system now a 'shadow of its former self'? Certainly not in track length, which is now so much greater than in those 'halcyon days' (something that no other surviving legacy system can claim, even of the rolling stock has been modernised.)

>>

>> Brent Efford – trying to close the TDU - reality gap

>>

>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:11:56 AM UTC+12p...@... <applewebdata://95A593DA-BBEC-479C-BD36-2795EC784927> wrote:

>>

>> Understandably, Mal Rowe says he's not impressed by marketeers determining fleet numbers and class letters.

>>

>> I reckon the real reason why the classification was changed was to avoid any likelihood of the new trams being facetiously referred to as the F*uck class.

>>

>> Tram enthusiasts do not like bean counters or marketeers. What other professions are similarly maligned?

>>

>> Sure, the halcyon days of the Melbourne tram system (1919-1983) are very much part of increasingly ancient history and today's system is a shadow of its former self but it must still be good to know that the fleet is being updated even if it's slowly but surely?

>>

>> Paul in Melbourne

>

>

> --

> 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/911e9a87-82ae-43af-8ee1-6c03f58e4e49n%40googlegroups.com https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/911e9a87-82ae-43af-8ee1-6c03f58e4e49n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer.