Re: The New and Improved W's
IS Edit
Tuesday, September 11, 2001 1:24 PM
Bill:
The feeling that new was better was an unthinking ethos. When they did try
new they didn't do it very well, witness the Z1s with their poor ride, high
breakdown rate, conductors thrones, huge delays in collecting fares with
queues out into the streets and the thrones cost at least 8 passenger seats.
They were too thick to see the functional beauty and class the old W class
trams had. New to them was necessarily better but it was only for image,
they didn't really understand it and they didn't collectively have the
brains to use it.
W-class trams were well accepted for day to day transit service until the
M&MTB and successor bodies knackered them a bit at a time. Why? Revisit my
previous post. They were almost as much a part of Melbourne as cable cars
were of San Francisco (before the tourist hordes made them into amusement
park rides and they could no longer be used for serious transport by the
locals).
My point about modern image is that it has nothing to do with the underlying
reality, the functionality, the aesthetics. Ahhhh. Tinsel Town on the
Harbour. Perhaps it loses something in the translation.:)
One thing the new and the old Melbourne trams have in common is that they
are run (managed) by incompetents and come nowhere near reaching their
potential. It is easier for stupid organisations to run buses well than
trams. I worked out at the time that the M&MTB bought the Z class trams that
they were not cost effective, they were no more comfortable than buses, they
had two man crews, no more seats than one man buses which were much shorter
and lighter and they put out more pollution than a modern bus (they are
powered by brown coal). My point was that if we were going to have stuffwits
running public transport in Melbourne, might as well give them vehicles
which could be effectively operated by stuffwits.
Bob Murphy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bolton" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] The New and Improved W's
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/DiTxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
The feeling that new was better was an unthinking ethos. When they did try
new they didn't do it very well, witness the Z1s with their poor ride, high
breakdown rate, conductors thrones, huge delays in collecting fares with
queues out into the streets and the thrones cost at least 8 passenger seats.
They were too thick to see the functional beauty and class the old W class
trams had. New to them was necessarily better but it was only for image,
they didn't really understand it and they didn't collectively have the
brains to use it.
W-class trams were well accepted for day to day transit service until the
M&MTB and successor bodies knackered them a bit at a time. Why? Revisit my
previous post. They were almost as much a part of Melbourne as cable cars
were of San Francisco (before the tourist hordes made them into amusement
park rides and they could no longer be used for serious transport by the
locals).
My point about modern image is that it has nothing to do with the underlying
reality, the functionality, the aesthetics. Ahhhh. Tinsel Town on the
Harbour. Perhaps it loses something in the translation.:)
One thing the new and the old Melbourne trams have in common is that they
are run (managed) by incompetents and come nowhere near reaching their
potential. It is easier for stupid organisations to run buses well than
trams. I worked out at the time that the M&MTB bought the Z class trams that
they were not cost effective, they were no more comfortable than buses, they
had two man crews, no more seats than one man buses which were much shorter
and lighter and they put out more pollution than a modern bus (they are
powered by brown coal). My point was that if we were going to have stuffwits
running public transport in Melbourne, might as well give them vehicles
which could be effectively operated by stuffwits.
Bob Murphy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bolton" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] The New and Improved W's
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 16:08:55 +1000, Bob Murphy wrote:betterPersonally, I think there was an ethos in the old M&MTB that new is
public
Thank goodness for that, otherwise Melburnians would still be riding a
primarily 20kph cable car system that didn't extend much beyond the
middle suburban boundary at best!and W-class trams are distasteful old relics which do not project the
image they wanted.
Which IMO is indeed correct for day to day transit service.They are a lot more comfortable with trams which look modern
than they are with traditional trams.
And your point here is?
Cheers,
Bill
Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/DiTxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/