How can they eat crowds when they're given such arbitrarily low capacities by the authorities?
Are those capacities actually enforced?
You suggest the answer to your own question.
There is no enforcement and the Es in particular handle more than their specified capacity (Not maximum capacity) every day when the public servants board quickly at Spring St and head down to the city centre on the free trams.
Mal Rowe - satisfied passenger
On 14/04/2026 10:58, Mal Rowe wrote: > > There is no date on the drawings but it clearly dates from the > early1920s before the W class design. > There IS a date - at bottom right hand corner of the drawing - 14 September 1921
A compartment in a Sydney O could carry an amazing number of people who were not always small and I speak from personal experience. I think in fact that you could fit more average people in a given space now than you could then.
Melbourne never took to cross bench cars after the 1906 Brill trams and trailers used on the VR and NMETLCo lines.
The only other close example was the 4 P&MTT copies of the Adelaide D type, which P&MTT quickly sold to the HTT and were later sent 'back home' to Adelaide.
However, the MMTB did consider some designs for "Cars for use ... during crush load periods".
I attach the draft sketches.
They were for "Standing Male Passengers Only" with women (and men hoping for a seat) expected to take other trams - with seats - interspersed with the standee only trams.
Their estimated capacity was 80 to 90 men standing within pipe framed corrals or just open space.
Designs ideas C and D provided for a central slightly raised platform to enable the conductor to collect fares,
There is no date on the drawings but it clearly dates from the early1920s before the W class design.
Mal Rowe in a city where trams sill 'eat crowds'
On 11/04/2026 16:16, Mal Rowe wrote: > I will be interesting to see how this holds up over the next 12 months > or so. > Richard Youl provides some interesting commentary - and a video to illustrate. He refers to Victoria St in Richmond - a comparable tramway with similar traffic on a narrow roadway. ==== This Victoria St job was done virtually 10 years ago to the day. By chance I recorded the 109 in both directions recently so I took a look at it and would say that 99% of the section done at that time is still in perfectly good order. Victoria St Melbourne New Tram Track https://youtu.be/i559VzMuSlI In some stretches little patches have been applied. Overall, if there is a fault it’s in an area not just a small spot which suggests that, as you say, the standard of rolling was variable. As this work is done by contractors, there’s always a possibility that they skimped on bitumen thickness in Bridge Road. Actually looking closely at your second photograph and to some degree the first, the bitumen is the full thickness of the rail height now and is sitting firmly on the concrete sleeper base which as we both know certainly was not the case before! ==== Thanks Richard.
Transport Victoria have set up a web page outlining changes to tram stops for the roll out of the G class trams on routes 57, 59 and 82. Details are at: https://transport.vic.gov.au/news-and-resources/projects/next-generation-trams-enabling-infrastructure-works I'm pleased to say that the new design for 'my stop' at the corner of Pascoe Vale Rd and Fletcher St aligns with what I suggested to my local MP a year or so ago. I attach a pic of the current dangerous outbound stop. Mal Rowe - glad
On 08/04/2026 12:33, Mal Rowe wrote: > Bridge Rd Richmond was relayed in January 2021 using the now standard > Melbourne technique of concrete to sleeper height, fill with crushed > rock / crushed concrete to just below rail top and a bitumen top. > > This weekend the roadway in the tramway lanes will be resurfaced. > Here are a couple of pics of the work today. The old top layer (asphalt) has been lifted and the surface scarified. A small roller is running to consolidate the crushed rock level. As I said, it looks a bit light for the job. See first pic. Second pic shows the top layer of asphalt being applied. I will be interesting to see how this holds up over the next 12 months or so. Mal Rowe - civil engineering voyeur
Bridge Rd Richmond was relayed in January 2021 using the now standard Melbourne technique of concrete to sleeper height, fill with crushed rock / crushed concrete to just below rail top and a bitumen top. By May 2022 the road surface in Bridge Rd looked as shown in the first two attached photos. This is the narrow section of roadway between Hoddle St and Church St where cars and trucks share the roadway with trams. It seems that the crushed fill was not rolled well enough to provide a solid foundation for the bitumen. It has broken up and required regular patching. Other shared roadways have shown similar problems, but Bridge Rd is the worst. The width of the roadway between rails means that a narrow roller of the type usually used for footpaths was used for compacting the crushed fill. It seems that this type of roller may be inadequate for the job. Perhaps they need to borrow the Jelbart roller ex Ballarat that was designed for just this sort of work. Another pic attached. This weekend the roadway in the tramway lanes will be resurfaced. See: https://yarratrams.com.au/projects/bridge-road-resurfacing-works Mal Rowe hoping for a better outcome in Bridge Rd.
