The Modern Tramway Journal in the mid-20th century. ...

Hello All, the Modern Tramway articles above are quite interesting, and well written ( as opposed to the glorified PR release style of writing now prevalent ), a number of comments.
1 / the Vienna tram depicted in Part 2 is of a design style that became commonplace in Western Europe in the early 1970s and beyond. The Melbourne ( Melbourne & Metropolitan Tramways Board / MMTB ) Z class trams, whose original livery was cream and orange, with a chocolate brown roof, was of a similar appearance.
2 / I like trams, and I agree that Australian cities that scrapped their tram systems are the poorer for it. Melbourne retained its trams, primarily due to Major-General Robert Risson ( 1901-1992 ), Engineer and MMTB Chairman, WW2 Middle East and New Guinea service, and a formidable personality who successfully resisted all efforts to scrap Melbourne's trams, the ongoing anti tram campaign of the RACV and Melbourne Sun and Herald newspapers notwithstanding.Melbourne for many years had the largest tram network in the Southern Hemisphere, and it is now the world's largest tram network.
3 / British tram networks were generally built in the late 19th Century, and, with some exceptions, their newest trams were built pre 1929, therefore by 1950 replacements were due, and although some British systems did purchase new trams, no system completely replaced their pre WW2 rolling stock. Some undertakings also purchased electric trolleybuses as they were cheaper, and conversion and/or extensions to existing tram networks by trolleybuses was also cheaper.
4 / the reason trolleybuses were cheaper than trams was that diesel bus components were used, and electric tram traction motors were also still available, so for parts supply, maintenance, and overall costs, trolleybuses were an attractive alternative.
5 / for some other undertakings however, their tramway infrastructure was also coming up for renewal, and their tram fleet was rapidly ageing, and road improvement schemes were also coming under consideration. In this scenario, bus replacement was both a cheaper, and a more flexible option, in that road improvement schemes allowed for new or amended routes with a greater catchment area, and new buses had a significantly lower first purchase unit cost, plus new buses were now both wider and longer than their predecessors, so they also offered increased capacity, and they generally had semi automatic gearboxes to boot, so retraining tram drivers to be bus drivers was also achievable. ( London Transport's AEC RTs / Regent III used epicyclic gearboxes for example. )
6 / this is not to say that undertakings were necessarily anti tram, or anti trolleybus, but with the passage of time, new buses were becoming cheaper, bus operating costs were falling, mechanical reliability was increasing, and the availability of British firms prepared to build trolleybuses, let alone trams, was fast disappearing. Even undertakings pro trams like Leeds, or pro trolleybus like Reading, were faced with the reality of a lack of suppliers, especially considering that in Britain, you purchased a chassis from one firm, and a body from another. So the economic reality facing undertakings, especially cash starved ones, was that bus replacement was the only viable alternative.
7 / Modern Tramway also has a history of advocating for law reform regarding tramways, where primarily 19th Century laws had become quite restrictive for tram operations by 1950, and there was not an easy fix in sight, especially as the Ministry of Transport was primarily a road transport body, and car ownership was rapidly increasing from 1950, with the demands by the broad road lobby ( which includes car owners ) to remove the slow, road blocking trams. From a legal perspective, it was only with the Bill authorising the Tyne-Wear PTE Metro that Tram / Light Rail started to become a possible future possibility in Britain.
8 / Unlike buses, which, with some exceptions, were built to a common set of dimensions suitable for use anywhere in Britain, British Tram networks had varying loading and track gauges, were not renowned for having generic trams ( not unusual at that time ), and second hand tram sales to other undertakings was rare for this reason. ( Yes, I know that Leeds bought LT Felthams. ) Buses, on the other had could easily be on sold to other operators, or one undertaking could get an extension to another undertakings bus order, safe in the knowledge that the new buses were regulatory compliant, and would be able to operate on existing roads and routes, and could be easily be onsold at a later date. This generally did not apply to trams or trolleybuses ( again, there were exceptions).
9 / Interesting articles, regards to all.

 

Hello All, another interesting article, and some comments on questions raised therein,
1 / compared to the existing two and three individual car and trailer sets, the new two part articulated tram improved passenger flow at stops, and was a better lit, and more comfortable travel experience. The reduction of one conductor per 3 car set not only lowered labour costs but occurred at a time of increasing labour shortages, so these, and subsequent replacement articulated trams represent a significant improvement in service, which, with increasing car ownership, was important.
2 / Conductors not only sell tickets, and ensure that all passengers have a valid ticket ( probably not always possible in a crowded tram ), but can advise passengers of stops closest to the passenger's ultimate destination, or advise on transfer locations, or other services, something less possible with driver only operation. Whilst I agree that route and network maps posted within the tram are helpful, available space considerations, and poor graphics design ( which is a matter of opinion ) can make this solution problematic.
3 / the use of folding steps and pneumatic doors raises the current and ongoing issues of accessibility. All modes of public transport are having to deal with this issue, which is eyewateringly expensive to retrofit. Where once the passenger was expected to negotiate the necessary step up themselves, thee is now a legal requirement for all public transport to be easily accessible to the less mobile members of our society.This is a good thing, but very few public transport systems were built this way, and fixing this is both time consuming and very expensive. For example I have been told that building accessible tram stops in Collins St Melbourne, about 2013, cost in excess of $1m each, and led to two stops being eliminated ( Russell St & Exhibition St ), the new stops, partly due to longer, articulated trams, being located away from the street intersection, and the tram lines being offset to allow for the platform space. At some locations, for space considerations, the stop is now located on either side of an intersection. The effect of this is that a quick change over at an intersection is no longer possible.
4 / electronic displays within trams ( and trains and buses ) seem to be getting better these days, with the use of colour coding and both moving and fixed displays give operators the ability to display immediately relevant information that fixed route network maps whilst still necessary and important, cannot do.
5 / ticketing systems in 1954 were still paper tickets and mechanical punches ( and would generally remain so until the 1980s ), so there were limitations in ticket issuance.Some networks ( including Melbourne ) had Peak Hour Ticket sellers at known busy locations, which to some extent, did speed up passenger throughput. Despite claims to the contrary, modern electronic tickets, whether using magnetic strips, or embedded chips are generally not faster than manual ticketing, and still cost a lot of money to install, maintain, and operate. Properly designed ( and that comment alone could generate a two day conference, and keep researchers in a job for at least a year ! ) electronic ticketing systems should generate useful data on passenger flow, and revenue collection should these days eliminate cash exchanges, but it does come at cost , and a change in travel zones may seriously effect the value of collected data.
6 / Stuttgart, like many European tram networks, used only route number boxes, which is fine whilst your network is compact and well known to your passengers, but can become problematic as your network expands. ( In later years the Ruhr tramway network became a single transit system with through routing, and multiple, overlapping operators. ) Destination displays, as a generalisation, typically once consisted of a route number/letter, and a destination. London Transport red buses have long had impressive front destination displays, necessary due to the generally long routes, and the availability of many locations having multiple services. This is generally not a problem with rail bound transport.What can be a problem with street bound public transport though is stop signage. From a passenger perspective, ideally a street stop should have a location name ( common, though not universal, in some European cities ) a destination as well as a route number/letter, at least an applicable route map, a timetable, lighting, and preferable a proper shelter ( as opposed to those ersatz shelters where standing on the seat in the corner, if either exists, is the only option when it rains ), and stop sign large and visible from a distance ( as opposed to those signs the size of an exercise book located 3+metres above ground level on a nearby power pole ! ).
7 / finally, the new articulated tram illustrated is a fine, modern design that does not look old 70 years later. An enjoyable and informative article, regards to all, Echidna.