Re: Melbourne Tramway Trailer Operation was (Re: Doncaster and Warrandyte Rail?)

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

"John Wayman" <trecker@bigpond.com> wrote:

> Melbourne didn't need multiple unit trams.

The M&MTB investigated MU approaches on a number of occasions but was
never able to do anything about them because of Victoria police
opposition. The M&MTB thought there was need for them.

> Many Sydney tram lines were built instead of railways

Its probably arguable that some were, but certainly not "many".

> and trunk routes required moving large masses of
> people.

Both Melbourne and Sydney had "trunk routes"....and Sydney had nothing
quite like St Kilda Rd when it came to concentration of tram traffic.

> The Sydney system had trackwork and wheel profiles to railway
> standard

Huh?!?

The special work was largely "railway style" pointwork buried in the
road, but otherwise (with few exceptions for small, isolated parts of
the system) Sydney used normal tramway profiles and track
construction.

> In Melbourne, the trams complemented the railway system.

No more or less, on the whole, than in Sydney.

> Trams moved lower volume crowds.

That doesn't seem to fit with either the written descriptions or
surviving motion picture footage of Melbourne in the '20/30s

> Showgrounds, racecourses and football venues were in most
> cases adequately serviced by both forms of transport.

Which may have been relevant if Sydney used multiple unit operation
only to those venues, but that was certainly not the case.

> Multiple unit operation means one tram every ten minutes, instead of two
> trams every 5 minutes.

Multiple unit operation means you have the option to easily increase
or decrease "vehicle" capacity as the traffic offering dictates.  It
also means that you can provide capacity at lower operational cost
than running individually manned vehicles.

Cheers

Bill