> State of the System
>
> On my last visit to Melbourne in 1993, the tramway system had become
>
> worryingly run down. The once-fine trackwork was in a terrible
> state,
> with derailments common and speed restrictions imposed in many
> areas. The
> trams themselves were becoming shabby – the Z1-class cars introduced
> in
> 1975 were in a shocking state; they had not had so much as an
> overhaul
> since being built up to 18 years before, and many were stored out of
> service.
<snip>
That was under Labor and not the conservatives don't forget. Hamer
lost the mid-eighties election. (see my post on part 1)
> There have been considerable improvements since. Timetables are now
> displayed at every stop. Services on most lines have become more
> reliable and frequencies are quite good.
<snip>
Improvements made by the so called anti-tram conservative government
of Kennett.
<snip>
> About 100 of the old W class trams, which are centre-entrance,
> air-brake
> bogie cars of pre-PCC technology (!), built from about 1936 to
> 1956,
> remain in service. Many of these, too, are being refurbished, but
> they
> will retain trolley poles (the overhead on most routes can handle
> both
> types of current collection). They are being fitted with heaters
> (Melbourne is c-c-cold in winter), improved exterior lighting
> including
> flashing indicators (which all the post-1975 trams have) and
> improved
> drivers’ cab equipment. But they are still slow and noisy compared
> with
> the modern trams, which speed up hills faster than the old trams can
> go
> down them.
More conservative government improvements.
<snip>
> It seems absurd to preserve so many ancient trams which all look
> virtually the same. To all intents and purposes, all remaining W
> cars, both those in storage and those in service, are identical.
<snip>
Agreed. How can a modern system run old stock in large numbers. This
was another initiative of a Labor Government from memory. Were they
trying to keep the old trams so the system would be scrapped because
of them and the lack of maintenance on trackwork?
<snip>
> There has been considerable reconstruction of trackwork since 1993,
> but some sections, particularly the long open-ballast sections of
> private rights of way on the Footscray (82), Airport West (59),
Mont Albert
> (109) and East Brighton/Malvern (64/5) are still in a terrible
condition.
<snip>
> Melbourne’s tramways seem to have lost expertise with open ballast
> track
> (very odd, considering the large railway system) and all new track
> since
> about 1968 has been in mass concrete. The worst sections of ballast
> track
> have been replaced in mass concrete rather than ballast track.
>
Is this evidence of an anti-tram conservative government at
work?<snip>
I'm sorry David, but your own part 4 contradicts your contention in
Part 1
> Despite the expansion of the past two decades, Melbourne’s tramway
is
> very much a system in transition and with an uncertain future. The
> conservative, pro-motorcar Victorian state government elected in
1993 has
> no plans for any more new trams or new routes and is actively
planning to
> split the system into two companies and sell them to private
operators.
>
(See my comments on this in Part 1. This statement is based on
extremely faulty premises and makes assumptioons that aren't true.)
You can't have your pie and eat it too. You must either say
conservatives are out to scrap the tramways as you infer (which in
reality is Labor policy) or admit they are repairing Labor's years of
neglect, which must be done first before you extend further. Only a
fool refits a ship with a leaking hull, without repairing the hull
first.
Cheers
Garry