Melbourne & Australian Architecture Topics

A place to talk about Australian Architecture, Heritage & Planning Issues
It is currently 24 Feb 2017, 10:21




All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2011, 03:47 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: 01 Dec 2010, 00:25
Posts: 44
The Sydney tram network was 291 kms, according to wiki.

It was the largest network in Australia, and second-largest in the
Commonwealth, after London.

The wiki entry is extensive and very detailed -- far too long to
quote here. Just google "Sydney tram network".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2011, 18:23 
Offline
Elite Member
Elite Member
User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 00:54
Posts: 631
Location: Essendon
Ah I see my mistake. The site i had checked for stats had Sydney's network at 181 kilometres as opposed to the actual 181 miles. #-o Makes a big difference.
Sorry for that oversight. :oops:
But my point sort of still stands. in the 1930's Sydney had over 1500 trams in service on 291 kms of track where as Melbourne today has only 500 trams on 245km of track. Doesn't make sense to me. Melbourne should be aiming to at least DOUBLE its number of rolling stock. Plus several track extensions, and new lines built would be good.
And as i said there is supposedly something between 200 and 300 W class trams just sitting in sheds (or worse for some).
Renovating the majority and putting them back into service is cheaper and debatably more aesthetically pleasing than the alternative.

Plus I do believe that regional cities could have proper tram networks developed. But that might be pushing it.

_________________
“We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.” -T.S Eliot


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2011, 11:11 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master

Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 11:07
Posts: 1328
drbuc wrote:
And as i said there is supposedly something between 200 and 300 W class trams just sitting in sheds (or worse for some).
Renovating the majority and putting them back into service is cheaper and debatably more aesthetically pleasing than the alternative.

Around 150 W-class trams are in storage, although a number of them have been cannibalised for parts.

I'm as nostalgic anyone about them, having ridden them in all weathers over many years. The National Trust have a scheme, which is well worth looking at, whereby a few more of them could be made compliant with modern standards and run over a couple of new routes.

http://www.nattrust.com.au/campaigns/w_class_trams

However returning any large number of them to service is just not feasible. Melbourne's tram network is a public transport system, not a museum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2011, 11:45 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: 01 Dec 2010, 00:25
Posts: 44
Corio wrote:
drbuc wrote:
And as i said there is supposedly something between 200 and 300 W class trams just sitting in sheds (or worse for some).
Renovating the majority and putting them back into service is cheaper and debatably more aesthetically pleasing than the alternative.

Around 150 W-class trams are in storage, although a number of them have been cannibalised for parts.

I'm as nostalgic anyone about them, having ridden them in all weathers over many years. The National Trust have a scheme, which is well worth looking at, whereby a few more of them could be made compliant with modern standards and run over a couple of new routes.

However returning any large number of them to service is just not feasible. Melbourne's tram network is a public transport system, not a museum.


Returning large numbers to service is definitely feasible. The trams were
well-built, and have minimal electric equipment that can go wrong
(unlike the modern ones that have electronic control equipment).

They ride better than either of the Citadis or Bombardier trams --
there's no "soft" ride as far as the suspension is concerned,
and are unstable going round corners; with speed limits as low as
5 kph. As well as that, there are only two steps into the tram,
compared to three for A, B, and Z-class trams.

I recall that when there was a speed limit in Dandenong Road of 30kph
for Z-class trams owing to the rough condition of the track,
the W-class trams travelled over that track at full speed, giving
a smooth ride.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2011, 15:13 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master

Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 11:07
Posts: 1328
RobinV wrote:
Corio wrote:
Around 150 W-class trams are in storage, although a number of them have been cannibalised for parts.

I'm as nostalgic anyone about them, having ridden them in all weathers over many years. The National Trust have a scheme, which is well worth looking at, whereby a few more of them could be made compliant with modern standards and run over a couple of new routes.

However returning any large number of them to service is just not feasible. Melbourne's tram network is a public transport system, not a museum.


Returning large numbers to service is definitely feasible. The trams were
well-built, and have minimal electric equipment that can go wrong
(unlike the modern ones that have electronic control equipment).

I agree with you about the problems too often inherent in the use of modern electronic systems. However they are not inevitable or insurmountable. For example the high-speed trains running safely and successfully around the world aren't controlled by banks of variable resistance units or the manual block signalling dating from the first half of the twentieth century. They rely on modern computerised command and control systems.

No matter how well built something is, entropy means that their life span is finite, although it is obviously arguable as to when that life span is up. As far as the W-class trams' simple electronics go, the major components aren't made any more unfortunately - hence the need to cannibalise the stored trams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2011, 20:45 
Offline
Elite Member
Elite Member
User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 00:54
Posts: 631
Location: Essendon
What I was thinkign was more replacement of most of the mechanical parts of the remaining W class trams, keeping the bodies and interiors, so that they are at the same standard as modern trams - the same way several of the cities that have W class trams have done. I can't name the cities due to a lack of memory - but I do remember that several of them have renovated the trams so that they are of a high standard functionally. And those renovations were at a cost effective price.

_________________
“We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.” -T.S Eliot


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Melbourne Buildings