Re: Re: Melbourne W6 975
David Langley
Friday, April 5, 2002 1:23 PM
But we ran route 10 for 50 years, I think your thoughts - if they are
true - are a bit of a cop out. I realise that 112 looks like someone
added 12 to the 11 and I could cope (just) with that if it was to have
been an extremely temporary thing, but it doesn't seem to be.
Standing in Collins Street late in the evening peak even only 12 years
ago, you could see route 11 trams following route 12 trams towards
Brunswick Street and following soon after would be the first of the
route 10 cars. I never saw the public confused by these numbers.
Actually I think that route 10 was the regular operation and it
gradually split into 11 and 12 for certain times of the day (mainly the
peak hours) then the weekday off peak became split and finally the
weekends but this occurred only after we gave up on shared routes.
Routes 15, 16 and 22 are similar with 15 being the combined 15 and 22,
perhaps when we run the through route again we should call it 162 or 122
or even 1622.
David.
yags_08 wrote:
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Save Time & Money
Outsource Your Software & Application Development with Elance
Post Your Project for FREE
http://us.click.yahoo.com/FmjnND/6A0DAA/cosFAA/DiTxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
true - are a bit of a cop out. I realise that 112 looks like someone
added 12 to the 11 and I could cope (just) with that if it was to have
been an extremely temporary thing, but it doesn't seem to be.
Standing in Collins Street late in the evening peak even only 12 years
ago, you could see route 11 trams following route 12 trams towards
Brunswick Street and following soon after would be the first of the
route 10 cars. I never saw the public confused by these numbers.
Actually I think that route 10 was the regular operation and it
gradually split into 11 and 12 for certain times of the day (mainly the
peak hours) then the weekday off peak became split and finally the
weekends but this occurred only after we gave up on shared routes.
Routes 15, 16 and 22 are similar with 15 being the combined 15 and 22,
perhaps when we run the through route again we should call it 162 or 122
or even 1622.
David.
yags_08 wrote:
--- In TramsDownUnder@y..., David Langley <del@a...> wrote:This is probably the time to comment on the fact that the presentthan
operators have chosen to go back to this through routing but rathergive it its traditional route number 10 they have elected to go withthe
112. Anyone any thoughts on this? Is it possibly because nobody inpresent company knows anything about route numbers currently unused.
I'll have a stab at it... =)... they didn't want to confuse people
who catch 11 or 12, so making it 112 has part of each of the two
routes?
Johann
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Save Time & Money
Outsource Your Software & Application Development with Elance
Post Your Project for FREE
http://us.click.yahoo.com/FmjnND/6A0DAA/cosFAA/DiTxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/