Re: Melbourne Historic Fleet - Action/Petition

Greg's the one with the knowledge. I can help with wording and a bit of
publicity.

I'm happy to work in with Greg.

And we should pull in some of the other guys who have been doing this sort
of thing for awhile and get the PTUA to support it as well as the public
transport union.

Louie Di Gregorio would support it, I'm sure.

Greg, perhaps we should figure out who to invite and have a meeting in
Melbourne to discuss some proposals. I'd be happy to come down for such a
meeting.

I'd also be happy to word up or help you word up some proposals or ideas
before and after such a meeting. I'm good at that sort of stuff.

I could also help crack the media on the issue. They would be instrumental
in getting the government's attention.

How about it, Greg? heheheheheheheheheh

My full contact details are below.

Bob Murphy
IS Edit Transport & Technical Communications
PO Box 111
Campbells Creek VIC 3451
AUSTRALIA

Tel: +61 3 5476 4408
5476 4474
Mobile: 0428 312 116

[email protected]
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cawood, David" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:39 AM
Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Melbourne Historic Fleet - Action/Petition

Hi Gentlemen

I have been very pleased by the passionate debates which have come forth
from my earlier e-mails.

Bravo for Greg King's thoughts and observations in a balanced context are
admirable. From my perspective here in NZ, the next step is action. I

think

the action we can all be involved in is the creation of a Petition which
outlines several specific action points which we would like the

appropriate

Minister to consider and cut through the red tape and commercial interests
to achieve. Including Thornbury Depot, the provision of multi voltage,
continued panto/trolley pole operation on specific routes, possibly 12 and
16. Most importantly the inclusion of a seperate contract for the

operation

of the Historic trams (with Connies) by a commercial or voluntary entity
with peppercorn running rights and Historic operational exemptions.

Do you want to word such a petition Greg?

Let's put all the talk to some constructive use! Putting money where are

big

mouths are - me included!

Cheers
David Cawood


From: "Greg King"
Date: Sun Dec 2, 2001 12:26 am
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder]

Hi Peter,

Let me put a few points here from someone on the "inside" about all this
firstly, let me state my position, I believe we should have routes 12 and

16

"W" operated, I also believe that the former Preston depot AKA Thornbury
depot, the museum with cars running in the reserve to Merry Creek and

return

between service cars. That said, here are reasons why it is difficult to
make happen.

Ever since the spate of rear end collisions that the "W's" had prior to

June

2000, there has been a reluctance with all levels of management to run
anything without a new braking system. The problem goes back to two main
problems, the much vaunted "slack adjusters" that never worked, a way of
saving a few dollars for a pitman. Secondly and, the most significant

part,

goes back the Kennett govenrments outragous deal done with the ticket
machines. On the "W's", the things were so heavy, they over balanced the
cars so a counter weight had to be added to the other side with
corresponding changes to the brake rigging, THIS is the underlying problem
with a brake system that worked effeciently (and I can attest to that

having

been an Instructor on them for many years) for 70+ years, proof of all the
above is, the City Circle and the resturant cars never had those rigging
modifications and had no problems stopping. Thus the paranoia increased to
the rediculous situation we have now where a traditional tram is not

allowed

to run on the system, has nothing to do with poles/pantographs (at lest

not

for the moment) or voltage. Many tram drivers don't want the "W's" because
the door operation is painfully slow having been modified for one man
operation, management a frightened of them. My own belief is, they should
pull 50 cars out of the many stored (there would be at least 50 that are

in

excellent body condition) and put them back into service as they were on

the

12 and 16 and put those bloody useless "Tram Attendants" that the

government

hired to be token conductors, back on those cars, perhaps call for drivers
that want to drive "W's" and have a seperate roster (I would be the first
with my hand up). As for some comments past about public wanting only

modern

cars, crap! The public could'nt give a rats arse wheter it was a W, Z, B,

C

or a bus, as long as it gets them there, they prefer trams at the moment
because, MOST are dishonest and want to ride free. We need more ticket
checkers that arrest these people. If we brought back conductors on the
whole service, 75% of passengers would tell them to "get stuffed, how are
you going to make me pay" and would probably end up in a fight. THAT is

how

much society has changed since the loss of the conductors! Management

don't

want double the payroll to pay, why would they, they are private

companies,

they would rather go to buses where the passengers have to pay as they get
on. Don't elude youselves, it is an Urban myth that Melbourne loves it's
trams, if they were tobe scraped, the sreams would die as quick as they

did

in brisbane and they DID love their trams. As for fare collection,
pre-purchased ticketing has been working well for decades in Europe, it's
the half arsed way we go about things here why it fails here.

Lastly, as I mentioned, Joe Public could care less about what they travel

on

but, apart from the high steps and lack of air-conditioning (Japanes have

no

problem fitting it to their conventional cars), the SW5-W7 series are the
most comfortable trams to ride on, especially the rock hard riding Citadis
cars!

Hope this has shed some light on the subject.

Greg

Thought it made sense to go back to the beginning of this

discussion.First

am I right in saying that only Southbank Jct.to St.Kilda station and Port
Melbourne are not pole compatible?If so what is stopping us running some
kind of service with W and older cars even if only occasionaly,on Sundays

or

as happened one year,to the Australian Open{lots of visitors and not much
traffic at that time of year and visitors do love our old trams].I am sure
there are reasons,I just don't know what they are or if they are lack of
official will or actual official resistance.It seems to me that if you can
run Restaurant Trams running at series speed mixed in with service cars

then

anything else would be an improvement.I'd back it in that anything except

a

Birney[worst ride in Christendom] could keep average service speeds
on,say,St.Kilda Rd.and not delay other services.I'm not saying you'd run

the

old cars every day just that when you did run them they needn't stuff up

the

rest of the service.I'm with you David,I'd like our famous tramway

heritage

to be a bit more visible,and to carry working connies.On that subject I'm
getting really pissed off with seeing 4 or 5 people chasing fare evaders
instead of 1 person actually selling tickets even if only on city safety
zones and at other busy points,I know fare evasion is a problem but surely
prevention is better than this dubious,and surely costly, cure.Any
thoughts?Regards all,Peter Bruce. --- In








Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
See What You've Been Missing!
Amazing Wireless Video Camera.
Click here
http://us.click.yahoo.com/75YKVC/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/DiTxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/