I can't locate the authors' original paper to confirm this, but, having
done this same type of analysis for more than a decade, I can see that
there's one major factor missing here - the number of stops on each section
being compared. With the exception of Melbourne, which has non-compulsory
stopping and is hard to compare, older systems tended to have/have had many
more compulsory stops than modern ones. This factor actually makes the
modern Australian systems look even worse for journey time. Unless of
course it's the Gold Coast or Canberra where the long stop spacings and
fewer stops per distance quite obviously give them an average speed
advantage. It also isn't an issue of modern trams vs older ones, but other
factors like power to weight ratio and adhesion. Go over to Europe and see
modern trams performing just as well as their forebears, because they've
been specified appropriately. One needs to compare apples with apples, not
apples with oranges.

Tony P

On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 09:27:14 UTC+11gregsut...@...
wrote:

>

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/22/snail-rail-why-are-trams-in-australian-cities-running-slower-than-they-were-100-years-ago?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

>

>

>