Re: throwing out perfectly good trains and trams

[billboltonREMOVE-TO-EMAIL@computer.org (Bill Bolton)]

amorton@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Anthony Morton) wrote:

> I'd say this is typical of most public transport users.

There plenty of evidence to indicate its not.

> Replacing aging Tait trains with Harris trains and Harris with Hitachi
> did nothing to halt declining postwar patronage.

How do you know what impact it had on patronage?  There is evidence
aform many system around the world to indicate that the rate of
systemic decline is arrested by improved rolling stock.

> doesn't deliver them from A to B in a reasonable time.  Quality of vehicles
> only starts to matter once you've sorted out these basic problems, which
> we're still a long way from doing in Melbourne.

Again, there is a lot evidence from around the world to show that
vehicle age is a HIGH choice factor issue.

> In short, there's more than enough evidence to suggest that fast, frequent
> services with convenient transfers and a well-connected network will attract
> people onto public transport even if the rolling stock's a little behind the
> times.

There is evidence to suggest that those are also significant factors
but not at the expense of vehicle age.  "A little but behind the
times" is a lot different from ~45+ years old.

Cheers,

Bill