On 8/08/2023 3:22 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 8/8/2023 2:20 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 8/08/2023 8:20 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 07:38:56 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/08/2023 5:21 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 7/08/2023 3:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Never been on an EV bus and they would have some advantages over
>>>>>> trams
>>>>>> in that they can go anywhere but a tram never needs to be charged.
>>>>>> Melbourne has the largest tram network in the world which covers a
>>>>>> lot
>>>>>> of the city so we have had emission free public transport for a very
>>>>>> very long time and very likely we will still have trams when EV buses
>>>>>> are obsolete.
>>>>>
>>>>> **You hit the nail on the head, when you acknowledged that electric
>>>>> buses are not confined to tracks. That fact will kill off trams.
>>>>
>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it. Sydney made the decision to kill off it's tram fleet
>>>> decades
>>>> ago and have regretted it ever since.
>>>
>>> That's bullshit. Imagine the Sinney traffic if they still had trams
>>> taking
>>> up half the road.
>>
>> Been down George Street lately?
>
> Imagine Sinney (sic) traffic. I hear all is not well traffic wise own
> there due to trams obstructing it.

**Shitney traffic is horrible. George Street is now pretty much devoid
of all traffic, so they can run trams up and down. And yeah, trams can
cause problems, but so can pedestrians and cars. Overall, I am a big fan
of moving as much traffic out of the CBD as possible. That said, I don't
do any jobs in the CBD anymore. So, I'm not affected. If I was required
to do work in the city, then I may take a different view.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 8/08/2023 3:50 pm, Xeno wrote:

> A city has to be designed for and around trams. Melbourne was, Sydney was
> already well established so couldn’t be. Look at the hassles Sydney is
> going through trying to *reintegrate* trans back into the city - and the
> city traffic. Painful!

Sydney was designed around trams, it's just that cars have taken over
the infrastructure that trams used to use eg. the Cahill "Expressway"
lanes on the Harbour Bridge.

https://tinyurl.com/4jbk6tpn

On 8/8/2023 2:53 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 8/08/2023 12:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 8/8/2023 5:21 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 7/08/2023 3:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/2023 1:45 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 3/08/2023 9:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2023 7:15 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03-Aug-23 4:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Birthday lunch today at the fabulous Bistro Moncur at Woollahra:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bistromoncur.com.au/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A bit exciting for the missus. Sam Neil was sitting near the
>>>>>>>> front of the place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, she talked me out of driving, as parking is a bitch in
>>>>>>>> Woollahra, so we caught the train to Central and hopped on a bus
>>>>>>>> to Woollahra. Weird bus. Smooth as butter and quiet as an
>>>>>>>> angel's fart. Air conditioning and all the mod cons, it was just
>>>>>>>> like a regular bus but WAY better. So, when I got out, I checked
>>>>>>>> it out more closely. Yep. An electric bus. Cool. On the way
>>>>>>>> back, I was jolted back into real life in a regular Diesel bus.
>>>>>>>> Jerky gear changes and noisy as fuck.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Standing outside the restaurant, I spotted a truck delivering
>>>>>>>> Jack Daniels to the pub next door. An electric truck! How about
>>>>>>>> that? I guess it was about a 3 ~ 4 Tonne truck too. Not a teeny
>>>>>>>> delivery van.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Great day. I don't feel much like dinner tonight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I was a child living in London, there were deliveries of
>>>>>>> milk made to the door each day. The vehicles used to do this were
>>>>>>> electric. Mind you, they weren't that fast, but given that almost
>>>>>>> everyone got their milk this way, they didn't need to be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing new about electric vehicles, first time I drove an
>>>>>> electric car was in the mid 70's, the tech has come a long way
>>>>>> since then with much more power and range but the basics are still
>>>>>> the same.
>>>>>> Melbourne has had electric public transport vehicles that are fast
>>>>>> and quiet since well before I was born, we call them trams:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **I've travelled on Melbourne trams many time (including the
>>>>> restaurant one).
>>>>
>>>> How long ago?
>>>
>>> **In Melbourne? 20 years ago. In Sydney? Last year. In Newcastle?
>>> Last year. Newcastle's trams are very interesting. They are battery
>>> operated. Good that both systems are ( no doubt as good as
>>> Melbourne's trams), the electric bus was better.
>>>
>>>> The restaurant tram is ancient and most likely older than both of
>>>> us, the newer trams are much smoother, faster and very quiet.
>>>
>>> **I'm am confident that they are as good as Sydney's and Newcastle's
>>> new trams.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no comparison to the electric bus I rode in last week.
>>>>> The bus was WAY better, faster (accelerating), quieter (the air
>>>>> conditioning was the noisiest thing about the bus), more
>>>>> comfortable and SMOOTH. If this is what buses will be in the
>>>>> future, I will be happy to ride in them.
>>>>>
>>>> Never been on an EV bus and they would have some advantages over
>>>> trams in that they can go anywhere but a tram never needs to be
>>>> charged.
>>>> Melbourne has the largest tram network in the world which covers a
>>>> lot of the city so we have had emission free public transport for a
>>>> very very long time and very likely we will still have trams when EV
>>>> buses are obsolete.
>>>
>>> **You hit the nail on the head, when you acknowledged that electric
>>> buses are not confined to tracks. That fact will kill off trams.
>>>
>>>
>> Maybe in other places but zero chance in Melbourne, the infrastructure
>> has been in place for a very long time and it all works very well so
>> it would be crazy to remove it.
>
> **In the short term, it will remain. Don't count on it remaining for
> another (say) 20 years though. More modern, battery systems, like the
> one in Newcastle, are showing enormous promise.

It would be insane to remove or even change a public transport system
that works very well and has paid for itself many times over.
The Vic Govt is bankrupt so has no money to spend, incompetent and
insane as they are there is a snow flakes chance in hell that they will
change the Melbourne trams for very expensive battery ones, there is
simply nothing to gain.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_Light_Rail
>

Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to replace an
existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very cost
effective.

--
Daryl

On 8/8/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 8/8/2023 2:53 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/08/2023 12:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2023 5:21 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 7/08/2023 3:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 7/8/2023 1:45 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/08/2023 9:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/2023 7:15 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 03-Aug-23 4:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Birthday lunch today at the fabulous Bistro Moncur at Woollahra:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bistromoncur.com.au/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A bit exciting for the missus. Sam Neil was sitting near the
>>>>>>>>> front of the place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, she talked me out of driving, as parking is a bitch in
>>>>>>>>> Woollahra, so we caught the train to Central and hopped on a
>>>>>>>>> bus to Woollahra. Weird bus. Smooth as butter and quiet as an
>>>>>>>>> angel's fart. Air conditioning and all the mod cons, it was
>>>>>>>>> just like a regular bus but WAY better. So, when I got out, I
>>>>>>>>> checked it out more closely. Yep. An electric bus. Cool. On the
>>>>>>>>> way back, I was jolted back into real life in a regular Diesel
>>>>>>>>> bus. Jerky gear changes and noisy as fuck.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Standing outside the restaurant, I spotted a truck delivering
>>>>>>>>> Jack Daniels to the pub next door. An electric truck! How about
>>>>>>>>> that? I guess it was about a 3 ~ 4 Tonne truck too. Not a teeny
>>>>>>>>> delivery van.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Great day. I don't feel much like dinner tonight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I was a child living in London, there were deliveries of
>>>>>>>> milk made to the door each day. The vehicles used to do this
>>>>>>>> were electric. Mind you, they weren't that fast, but given that
>>>>>>>> almost everyone got their milk this way, they didn't need to be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing new about electric vehicles, first time I drove an
>>>>>>> electric car was in the mid 70's, the tech has come a long way
>>>>>>> since then with much more power and range but the basics are
>>>>>>> still the same.
>>>>>>> Melbourne has had electric public transport vehicles that are
>>>>>>> fast and quiet since well before I was born, we call them trams:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I've travelled on Melbourne trams many time (including the
>>>>>> restaurant one).
>>>>>
>>>>> How long ago?
>>>>
>>>> **In Melbourne? 20 years ago. In Sydney? Last year. In Newcastle?
>>>> Last year. Newcastle's trams are very interesting. They are battery
>>>> operated. Good that both systems are ( no doubt as good as
>>>> Melbourne's trams), the electric bus was better.
>>>>
>>>>> The restaurant tram is ancient and most likely older than both of
>>>>> us, the newer trams are much smoother, faster and very quiet.
>>>>
>>>> **I'm am confident that they are as good as Sydney's and Newcastle's
>>>> new trams.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no comparison to the electric bus I rode in last week.
>>>>>> The bus was WAY better, faster (accelerating), quieter (the air
>>>>>> conditioning was the noisiest thing about the bus), more
>>>>>> comfortable and SMOOTH. If this is what buses will be in the
>>>>>> future, I will be happy to ride in them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Never been on an EV bus and they would have some advantages over
>>>>> trams in that they can go anywhere but a tram never needs to be
>>>>> charged.
>>>>> Melbourne has the largest tram network in the world which covers a
>>>>> lot of the city so we have had emission free public transport for a
>>>>> very very long time and very likely we will still have trams when
>>>>> EV buses are obsolete.
>>>>
>>>> **You hit the nail on the head, when you acknowledged that electric
>>>> buses are not confined to tracks. That fact will kill off trams.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Maybe in other places but zero chance in Melbourne, the
>>> infrastructure has been in place for a very long time and it all
>>> works very well so it would be crazy to remove it.
>>
>> **In the short term, it will remain. Don't count on it remaining for
>> another (say) 20 years though. More modern, battery systems, like the
>> one in Newcastle, are showing enormous promise.
>
> It would be insane to remove or even change a public transport system
> that works very well and has paid for itself many times over.
> The Vic Govt is bankrupt so has no money to spend, incompetent and
> insane as they are there is a snow flakes chance in hell that they will
> change the Melbourne trams for very expensive battery ones, there is
> simply nothing to gain.
>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_Light_Rail
>>
>
>
> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to replace an
> existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very cost
> effective.
>
Melbourne trams are *not* environmentally friendly. All they have done
is *shift* the pollution *out of the city* and into the Latrobe Valley.
What do they burn to generate electricity in the Latrobe Valley? They
burn *brown coal*. You really have trouble with this lateral thinking,
don't you?

https://www.stovesonline.co.uk/coal-types.html#:~:text=The%20ranks%20of%20coal%20(from,type%20of%20coal%20to%20use.

Types of coal, lignite, subbituminous coal, anthracite,
bituminous coal

What type of coal is burnt in the Latrobe Valley - it's *lignite*, the
worst most polluting coal there is!

Used almost exclusively for electric power generation lignite
is a young type of coal. Lignite is brownish black, has a high
moisture content (up to 45 %), and a high sulphur content.
Lignite is more like soil than a rock and tends to disintegrate
when exposed to the weather. Lignite is also called *brown coal*.
Lignite has a calorific value of less than 5 kw/kg approximately.

https://www.env-health.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/HEAL-Lignite-Briefing-en_web.pdf

Both hard coal and lignite are mined all over the world.
However, while hard coal is extracted in underground (deep)
mines, most of the lignite is mined in open cast (surface)
mines. This means that the mining process of lignite is
comparatively cheaper than for hard coal. But open mining
of lignite creates new burdens (and costs) due to its social
and environmental impacts such as rehabilitation of open
mines or forced resettlement of the population living around
the mining area.

Due to it’s relatively high water content (40% to 60%)6 it
is difficult to transport lignite over long distances, unlike
hard coal. That means lignite powered coal power plants are
mostly located close to the mine, equipped with conveyor
belts or short distance trains. Hard coal transportation
results in additional air pollutant and greenhouse gas
emissions.

Lignite contains a lot more water than hard coal, meaning
lignite typically has smaller energetic value per mass unit
and is considered as “lower quality coal”. While the energy
content of hard coal is between 16.5-32.5 megajule (MJ) per
kilogram, typically lignite has energy content less than
16.5 MJ/kg7. As a result, compared to hard coal, a higher
amount of lignite needs to be burnt to produce the same
amount of energy. For example, in Turkey 3.4 times more
lignite has to be burned for the same megawatt generated
compared to hard coal.

Combustion of both fuels equally releases particulate
matter (PM), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOx), heavy metals and other pollutants8 to the air.
This pollution can travel thousands of kilometres across
borders and even oceans9. Burning coal for electricity
generation is also one of the biggest industrial sources
of CO2 emissions, fuelling climate change. However, the
pollutant composition changes with type and content of
the coal as well as with the combustion technology of
the power plant. Lignite is likely to have more sulphur
and ash content and less energetic value compared to
hard coal, so burning lignite in coal power plants
creates more air pollutant emissions per megawatt
generated.

On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 8/8/2023 2:53 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/08/2023 12:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2023 5:21 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 7/08/2023 3:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 7/8/2023 1:45 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/08/2023 9:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/2023 7:15 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 03-Aug-23 4:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Birthday lunch today at the fabulous Bistro Moncur at Woollahra:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bistromoncur.com.au/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A bit exciting for the missus. Sam Neil was sitting near the
>>>>>>>>> front of the place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, she talked me out of driving, as parking is a bitch in
>>>>>>>>> Woollahra, so we caught the train to Central and hopped on a
>>>>>>>>> bus to Woollahra. Weird bus. Smooth as butter and quiet as an
>>>>>>>>> angel's fart. Air conditioning and all the mod cons, it was
>>>>>>>>> just like a regular bus but WAY better. So, when I got out, I
>>>>>>>>> checked it out more closely. Yep. An electric bus. Cool. On the
>>>>>>>>> way back, I was jolted back into real life in a regular Diesel
>>>>>>>>> bus. Jerky gear changes and noisy as fuck.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Standing outside the restaurant, I spotted a truck delivering
>>>>>>>>> Jack Daniels to the pub next door. An electric truck! How about
>>>>>>>>> that? I guess it was about a 3 ~ 4 Tonne truck too. Not a teeny
>>>>>>>>> delivery van.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Great day. I don't feel much like dinner tonight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I was a child living in London, there were deliveries of
>>>>>>>> milk made to the door each day. The vehicles used to do this
>>>>>>>> were electric. Mind you, they weren't that fast, but given that
>>>>>>>> almost everyone got their milk this way, they didn't need to be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing new about electric vehicles, first time I drove an
>>>>>>> electric car was in the mid 70's, the tech has come a long way
>>>>>>> since then with much more power and range but the basics are
>>>>>>> still the same.
>>>>>>> Melbourne has had electric public transport vehicles that are
>>>>>>> fast and quiet since well before I was born, we call them trams:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I've travelled on Melbourne trams many time (including the
>>>>>> restaurant one).
>>>>>
>>>>> How long ago?
>>>>
>>>> **In Melbourne? 20 years ago. In Sydney? Last year. In Newcastle?
>>>> Last year. Newcastle's trams are very interesting. They are battery
>>>> operated. Good that both systems are ( no doubt as good as
>>>> Melbourne's trams), the electric bus was better.
>>>>
>>>>> The restaurant tram is ancient and most likely older than both of
>>>>> us, the newer trams are much smoother, faster and very quiet.
>>>>
>>>> **I'm am confident that they are as good as Sydney's and Newcastle's
>>>> new trams.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no comparison to the electric bus I rode in last week.
>>>>>> The bus was WAY better, faster (accelerating), quieter (the air
>>>>>> conditioning was the noisiest thing about the bus), more
>>>>>> comfortable and SMOOTH. If this is what buses will be in the
>>>>>> future, I will be happy to ride in them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Never been on an EV bus and they would have some advantages over
>>>>> trams in that they can go anywhere but a tram never needs to be
>>>>> charged.
>>>>> Melbourne has the largest tram network in the world which covers a
>>>>> lot of the city so we have had emission free public transport for a
>>>>> very very long time and very likely we will still have trams when
>>>>> EV buses are obsolete.
>>>>
>>>> **You hit the nail on the head, when you acknowledged that electric
>>>> buses are not confined to tracks. That fact will kill off trams.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Maybe in other places but zero chance in Melbourne, the
>>> infrastructure has been in place for a very long time and it all
>>> works very well so it would be crazy to remove it.
>>
>> **In the short term, it will remain. Don't count on it remaining for
>> another (say) 20 years though. More modern, battery systems, like the
>> one in Newcastle, are showing enormous promise.
>
> It would be insane to remove or even change a public transport system
> that works very well and has paid for itself many times over.
> The Vic Govt is bankrupt so has no money to spend, incompetent and
> insane as they are there is a snow flakes chance in hell that they will
> change the Melbourne trams for very expensive battery ones, there is
> simply nothing to gain.
>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_Light_Rail
>>
>
>
> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to replace an
> existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very cost
> effective.
>

**Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail. There
was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 8/08/2023 12:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 8/8/2023 5:21 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> **You hit the nail on the head, when you acknowledged that electric
>> buses are not confined to tracks. That fact will kill off trams.
>>
>>
> Maybe in other places but zero chance in Melbourne, the infrastructure
> has been in place for a very long time and it all works very well so it
> would be crazy to remove it.

It won't ever happen.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 8/08/2023 2:53 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 8/08/2023 12:53 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> Maybe in other places but zero chance in Melbourne, the infrastructure
>> has been in place for a very long time and it all works very well so
>> it would be crazy to remove it.
>
> **In the short term, it will remain. Don't count on it remaining for
> another (say) 20 years though. More modern, battery systems, like the
> one in Newcastle, are showing enormous promise.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_Light_Rail

We already have light rail here on certain routes, and have done for
years. As Daryl said, the tram system here is both extensive and well
established, and while battery operated vehicles may be added to the
public transport system to replace existing buses they won't remove the
tram network.

You simply have no idea how extensive it is, or how entrenched in the
Melbourne way of life it has become.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 8/08/2023 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to replace
>> an existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very
>> cost effective.
>>
>
> **Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
> removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail. There
> was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.

What NSW chooses to do has zero relevance to us down here.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 8/8/2023 4:20 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 8/08/2023 3:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
>
>> A city has to be designed for and around trams. Melbourne was, Sydney was
>> already well established so couldn’t be. Look at the hassles Sydney is
>> going through trying to *reintegrate* trans back into the city - and the
>> city traffic. Painful!
>
> Sydney was designed around trams, it's just that cars have taken over
> the infrastructure that trams used to use eg. the Cahill "Expressway"
> lanes on the Harbour Bridge.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/4jbk6tpn
>

You might want to *rework* your thinking on Sydney planning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_planning_in_Sydney

Urban planning in Sydney, Australia has been done formally and
informally since at least the city's establishment in 1788. The
city has been characterised as an 'accidental city', with
planning advocate JD Fitzgerald claiming that it was "a city
without a plan, save whatever planning was due to the errant
goat".

That, in turn, led to a tramway *system*, and I use the term loosely,
that also appeared to be planned by the errant goat and very much
*piecemeal*.

http://www.railpage.org.au/tram/sydhist.html

Also, that tramline over the bridge was long overdue and served to
connect two disparate tram systems in Sydney.

Melbourne, on the other hand, was planned. Surveyor Robert Hoddle and
Governor Bourke had a grand vision for the city and designed it on an
enormous grid, a much larger grid than was needed at the time for a
population of a mere 4,000 people. Hoddle convinced Bourke and others of
a need for the streets to be 99 feet wide. That meant that Melbourne's
streets were perfect for vehicles large and small and exceptionally
ideal for trams when they first appeared on the scene. It was a pity
that suburbs like North Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick, Footscray and
others outside Hoddle's grid failed to maintain the 99 foot wide
streets, at least on main thoroughfares. They became traffic bottlenecks
when cars began to compete for road space with trams.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/8/2023 5:54 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/08/2023 12:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 8/8/2023 5:21 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> **You hit the nail on the head, when you acknowledged that electric
>>> buses are not confined to tracks. That fact will kill off trams.
>>>
>>>
>> Maybe in other places but zero chance in Melbourne, the infrastructure
>> has been in place for a very long time and it all works very well so
>> it would be crazy to remove it.
>
> It won't ever happen.
>
It doesn't need to be. You can run a battery electric bus/tram on
existing tram infrastructure, all that needs to be done is infill on
track in areas where rails and sleepers are exposed, up around the zoo
for instance.

Hey, it's happening already.

https://thedriven.io/2022/04/22/first-all-electric-trackless-tram-arrives-in-brisbane-for-testing/

Hey, a tram without all the infrastructure maintenance costs - that has
to be interesting to the beancounters.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/8/2023 5:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/08/2023 2:53 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/08/2023 12:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> Maybe in other places but zero chance in Melbourne, the
>>> infrastructure has been in place for a very long time and it all
>>> works very well so it would be crazy to remove it.
>>
>> **In the short term, it will remain. Don't count on it remaining for
>> another (say) 20 years though. More modern, battery systems, like the
>> one in Newcastle, are showing enormous promise.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_Light_Rail
>
> We already have light rail here on certain routes, and have done for
> years. As Daryl said, the tram system here is both extensive and well
> established, and while battery operated vehicles may be added to the
> public transport system to replace existing buses they won't remove the
> tram network.
>
> You simply have no idea how extensive it is, or how entrenched in the
> Melbourne way of life it has become.
>
You simply have no idea what's around the corner. Steam engines were
once a *way of life*. Where are they now?

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/8/2023 5:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/08/2023 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to replace
>>> an existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very
>>> cost effective.
>>>
>>
>> **Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
>> removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail.
>> There was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.
>
> What NSW chooses to do has zero relevance to us down here.
>
Yeah, but Melbourne did *exactly the same thing*. Remember the St Kilda
heavy rail? Been down there lately? You might notice some changes;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Kilda_railway_line

What about the Port Melbourne heavy rail line?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Melbourne_railway_line

What NSW is choosing to do is *follow Victoria's lead*. LOL

That word *relevance* has little meaning for you, this latest cockup of
yours proves it beyond a shadow of doubt.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/08/2023 6:34 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 8/8/2023 5:54 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 8/08/2023 12:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2023 5:21 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>> **You hit the nail on the head, when you acknowledged that electric
>>>> buses are not confined to tracks. That fact will kill off trams.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Maybe in other places but zero chance in Melbourne, the
>>> infrastructure has been in place for a very long time and it all
>>> works very well so it would be crazy to remove it.
>>
>> It won't ever happen.
>>
> It doesn't need to be. You can run a battery electric bus/tram on
> existing tram infrastructure, all that needs to be done is infill on
> track in areas where rails and sleepers are exposed, up around the zoo
> for instance.

And take down the overhead wires, remove the electric supply
infrastructures, and replace all the rolling stock. It all costs money
and achieves what?

> Hey, it's happening already.
>
> https://thedriven.io/2022/04/22/first-all-electric-trackless-tram-arrives-in-brisbane-for-testing/
>
> Hey, a tram without all the infrastructure maintenance costs - that has
> to be interesting to the beancounters.

It's not a tram, it's a B-double bus running on a dedicated road.

Tram noun
1) an electric vehicle that transports people, usually in cities, and
goes along metal tracks in the road

2) an electric vehicle that is similar to a bus but travels on tracks
laid along roads

3) a car that travels on a heavy wire up mountains or across rivers.

From the Cambridge English Corpus

On 8/8/2023 7:45 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 8/08/2023 6:34 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 8/8/2023 5:54 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 8/08/2023 12:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 8/8/2023 5:21 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> **You hit the nail on the head, when you acknowledged that electric
>>>>> buses are not confined to tracks. That fact will kill off trams.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe in other places but zero chance in Melbourne, the
>>>> infrastructure has been in place for a very long time and it all
>>>> works very well so it would be crazy to remove it.
>>>
>>> It won't ever happen.
>>>
>> It doesn't need to be. You can run a battery electric bus/tram on
>> existing tram infrastructure, all that needs to be done is infill on
>> track in areas where rails and sleepers are exposed, up around the zoo
>> for instance.
>
> And take down the overhead wires, remove the electric supply
> infrastructures, and replace all the rolling stock. It all costs money
> and achieves what?

As I said, you can run on existing infrastructure. You can run them
*alongside* existing tram types. No need to remove infrastucture
specific to trams *now*, only if and when they become obsolete as a
type. Given that current trams are well into their second century, I
suspect that won't be any time soon.
>
>> Hey, it's happening already.
>>
>> https://thedriven.io/2022/04/22/first-all-electric-trackless-tram-arrives-in-brisbane-for-testing/
>>
>> Hey, a tram without all the infrastructure maintenance costs - that
>> has to be interesting to the beancounters.
>
> It's not a tram, it's a B-double bus running on a dedicated road.

That's the whole idea, reduced infrastructure maintenance costs yet
performing the same function as a *tram* but *more cheaply* and just as
efficiently. What's not to like. That said, I like vehicles that run on
rails, I'm just cognisant of the fact that some vehicles don't involve
expensive permanent way infrastructure.
>
> Tram noun
> 1) an electric vehicle that transports people, usually in cities, and
> goes along metal tracks in the road
>
> 2) an electric vehicle that is similar to a bus but travels on tracks
> laid along roads

Ok, remove the tracks, substitute steering and rubber tyres, what do you
have. It still serves the *purpose* of moving bulk loads of people
around urban areas.
>
> 3) a car that travels on a heavy wire up mountains or across rivers.
>
> From the Cambridge English Corpus
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/08/2023 8:02 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 8/8/2023 7:45 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

>> Tram noun
>> 1) an electric vehicle that transports people, usually in cities, and
>> goes along metal tracks in the road
>>
>> 2) an electric vehicle that is similar to a bus but travels on tracks
>> laid along roads
>
> Ok, remove the tracks, substitute steering and rubber tyres, what do you
> have.

A bus.

> It still serves the *purpose* of moving bulk loads of people
> around urban areas.

So does a bus.

>>
>> 3) a car that travels on a heavy wire up mountains or across rivers.
>>
>>  From the Cambridge English Corpus
>>
>

On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 17:58:20 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 8/08/2023 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to replace
>>> an existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very
>>> cost effective.
>>>
>>>
>> **Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
>> removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail. There
>> was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.
>
> What NSW chooses to do has zero relevance to us down here.

A typically short-sighted blurt from the Fraudster.

Sensible States use NSW case histories as lessons in what *not* to do.

alvey
Recalling the NSW purchase of some new trains only to discover too late
that they were too wide for some tunnels. (Circa late last decade)

On 9/08/2023 7:36 am, alvey wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 17:58:20 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 8/08/2023 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to replace
>>>> an existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very
>>>> cost effective.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> **Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
>>> removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail. There
>>> was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.
>>
>> What NSW chooses to do has zero relevance to us down here.
>
> A typically short-sighted blurt from the Fraudster.
>
> Sensible States use NSW case histories as lessons in what *not* to do.
>
>
> alvey
> Recalling the NSW purchase of some new trains only to discover too late
> that they were too wide for some tunnels. (Circa late last decade)
>
>
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-02-25/new-brisbane-trains-too-big-for-tunnels/2202636
Not like Queensland hasn't stuffed up as well.

On 9/08/2023 7:36 am, alvey wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 17:58:20 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 8/08/2023 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to replace
>>>> an existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very
>>>> cost effective.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> **Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
>>> removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail. There
>>> was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.
>>
>> What NSW chooses to do has zero relevance to us down here.
>
> A typically short-sighted blurt from the Fraudster.
>
> Sensible States use NSW case histories as lessons in what *not* to do.
>
>
> alvey
> Recalling the NSW purchase of some new trains only to discover too late
> that they were too wide for some tunnels. (Circa late last decade)
>
>
further and even worse from Qld...

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/queensland-rail-facing-legal-action-because-its-new-44bn-trains-are-basically-illegal/news-story/6a5bff8cf7706833b0eb41d6f81d06d2

On 9/8/2023 8:42 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> On 9/08/2023 7:36 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 17:58:20 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/08/2023 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to replace
>>>>> an existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very
>>>>> cost effective.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> **Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
>>>> removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail. There
>>>> was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.
>>>
>>> What NSW chooses to do has zero relevance to us down here.
>>
>> A typically short-sighted blurt from the Fraudster.
>>
>> Sensible States use NSW case histories as lessons in what *not* to do.
>>
>>
>> alvey
>> Recalling the NSW purchase of some new trains only to discover too late
>> that they were too wide for some tunnels. (Circa late last decade)
>>
>>
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-02-25/new-brisbane-trains-too-big-for-tunnels/2202636 Not like Queensland hasn't stuffed up as well.
>

I was talking to a Brisbane train driver friend last week and he
mentioned the stuff up with train drivers, supposedly to cut costs they
offered very lucrative early retirement to older drivers only to create
a driver shortage.
To try and quickly solve the problem they created they reduced driver
training so that new drivers are only trained to drive on half the
network, some Nth Sth, others East West which limits their ability to be
deployed anywhere on the network.
Also interesting is the cost of using the airport rail, because we
arrived at Brisbane airport early 3 weeks ago we thought that it would
be easier to catch the train to the station closest to our friends place
(Caboolture), cost for 2 with concession was $51.00 one way, our train
driver friend said that more than half of that was the airport train and
we only traveled 2 stops on that part of the trip.

--
Daryl

On 9/8/2023 7:36 am, alvey wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 17:58:20 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 8/08/2023 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to replace
>>>> an existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very
>>>> cost effective.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> **Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
>>> removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail. There
>>> was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.
>>
>> What NSW chooses to do has zero relevance to us down here.
>
> A typically short-sighted blurt from the Fraudster.
>
> Sensible States use NSW case histories as lessons in what *not* to do.
>
>
> alvey
> Recalling the NSW purchase of some new trains only to discover too late
> that they were too wide for some tunnels. (Circa late last decade)
>
Victoria led the way in those sorts of debacles. The Libs in Victoria
thought they would create *competition* in the metrail network by
privatising it. Firstly they divided up the network into 2 sections,
Bayside and Hillside. Then they sold them off to two different buyers.
Where was the competition? Melbourne's rail network radiates out from
the CBD and each company had a completely separate section from the
other with the only commonality being the *city loop*. Did I mention
that the pseudo-competition led to *higher ticket pricing*? Anyway, in
the process of *privatisation*, all the old plans and documentation from
the system were somehow lost when the *engineering section* was also
broken up and privatised. That meant that when Bayside ordered new
trains from Siemens, they were too wide to fit the platforms.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/new-trains-dont-fit-tracks-platforms-20021220-gduym9.html
That was way back in 2002. Victoria certainly *led the way*! NSW just
followed the lead and *mimicked* the mistakes perfectly and Queensland
is in the process. No doubt the Libs corrupt mates in business made a
killing.
What hope have we, the public, got when even the countries building the
trains and deploying them in huge numbers can't get it right.

https://www.theverge.com/us-world/2014/5/22/5740588/french-trains-error-sncf-too-wide-for-stations

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Wed, 09 Aug 2023 08:42:46 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:

snip whatever

GT: I haven't seen you, xeno, or clocky supporting me so i cant have the
full support of the biggest *proven* liars, fraud, hypocrites and
cowards in the group.
AS: Here we go again.

Ok Gumps. There have been shedloads of *proven* episodes of The
Fraudster performing all those behaviours. Now howabout you provide
examples of my lying, fraud, hypocrisy and cowardice. Either do that
or a provide a retraction thanks.
GT: Sleep with dogs... you know the rest.

AS: So you can't provide any examples and you're not going to apologise or
retract. Is that correct?

fx: Sounds of silence

AS: Well done Gumps.
Make any allegation you like and then refuse to prove or retract.
That's seriously pissweak.

On 9/08/2023 9:46 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/8/2023 8:42 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 9/08/2023 7:36 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 17:58:20 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/08/2023 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to replace
>>>>>> an existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very
>>>>>> cost effective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> **Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
>>>>> removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail.
>>>>> There
>>>>> was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.
>>>>
>>>> What NSW chooses to do has zero relevance to us down here.
>>>
>>> A typically short-sighted blurt from the Fraudster.
>>>
>>> Sensible States use NSW case histories as lessons in what *not* to do.
>>>
>>>
>>> alvey
>>> Recalling the NSW purchase of some new trains only to discover too late
>>> that they were too wide for some tunnels. (Circa late last decade)
>>>
>>>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-02-25/new-brisbane-trains-too-big-for-tunnels/2202636 Not like Queensland hasn't stuffed up as well.
>>
>
> I was talking to a Brisbane train driver friend last week and he
> mentioned the stuff up with train drivers, supposedly to cut costs they
> offered very lucrative early retirement to older drivers only to create
> a driver shortage.
> To try and quickly solve the problem they created they reduced driver
> training so that new drivers are only trained to drive on half the
> network, some Nth Sth, others East West which limits their ability to be
> deployed anywhere on the network.
> Also interesting is the cost of using the airport rail, because we
> arrived at Brisbane airport early 3 weeks ago we thought that it would
> be easier to catch the train to the station closest to our friends place
> (Caboolture), cost for 2 with concession was $51.00 one way, our train
> driver friend said that more than half of that was the airport train and
> we only traveled 2 stops on that part of the trip.

Sydney airport train also charges a premium, $13.50 p/p if I remember
right and no concession (and the train is just a crappy suburban model).

On 9/08/2023 4:43 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/08/2023 9:46 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 9/8/2023 8:42 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 9/08/2023 7:36 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 17:58:20 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/08/2023 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to
>>>>>>> replace
>>>>>>> an existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very
>>>>>>> cost effective.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
>>>>>> removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail.
>>>>>> There
>>>>>> was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.
>>>>>
>>>>> What NSW chooses to do has zero relevance to us down here.
>>>>
>>>> A typically short-sighted blurt from the Fraudster.
>>>>
>>>> Sensible States use NSW case histories as lessons in what *not* to do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> alvey
>>>> Recalling the NSW purchase of some new trains only to discover too late
>>>> that they were too wide for some tunnels. (Circa late last decade)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-02-25/new-brisbane-trains-too-big-for-tunnels/2202636 Not like Queensland hasn't stuffed up as well.
>>>
>>
>> I was talking to a Brisbane train driver friend last week and he
>> mentioned the stuff up with train drivers, supposedly to cut costs
>> they offered very lucrative early retirement to older drivers only to
>> create a driver shortage.
>> To try and quickly solve the problem they created they reduced driver
>> training so that new drivers are only trained to drive on half the
>> network, some Nth Sth, others East West which limits their ability to
>> be deployed anywhere on the network.
>> Also interesting is the cost of using the airport rail, because we
>> arrived at Brisbane airport early 3 weeks ago we thought that it would
>> be easier to catch the train to the station closest to our friends
>> place (Caboolture), cost for 2 with concession was $51.00 one way, our
>> train driver friend said that more than half of that was the airport
>> train and we only traveled 2 stops on that part of the trip.
>
> Sydney airport train also charges a premium, $13.50 p/p if I remember
> right and no concession (and the train is just a crappy suburban model).
>
Qld airport one is the same. Used to cost me about $27 to get to
Woolloongabba.

On 9/08/2023 4:47 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> On 9/08/2023 4:43 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/08/2023 9:46 am, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 9/8/2023 8:42 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>> On 9/08/2023 7:36 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 17:58:20 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/08/2023 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to
>>>>>>>> replace
>>>>>>>> an existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very
>>>>>>>> cost effective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
>>>>>>> removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail.
>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>> was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What NSW chooses to do has zero relevance to us down here.
>>>>>
>>>>> A typically short-sighted blurt from the Fraudster.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sensible States use NSW case histories as lessons in what *not* to do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> alvey
>>>>> Recalling the NSW purchase of some new trains only to discover too
>>>>> late
>>>>> that they were too wide for some tunnels. (Circa late last decade)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-02-25/new-brisbane-trains-too-big-for-tunnels/2202636 Not like Queensland hasn't stuffed up as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was talking to a Brisbane train driver friend last week and he
>>> mentioned the stuff up with train drivers, supposedly to cut costs
>>> they offered very lucrative early retirement to older drivers only to
>>> create a driver shortage.
>>> To try and quickly solve the problem they created they reduced driver
>>> training so that new drivers are only trained to drive on half the
>>> network, some Nth Sth, others East West which limits their ability to
>>> be deployed anywhere on the network.
>>> Also interesting is the cost of using the airport rail, because we
>>> arrived at Brisbane airport early 3 weeks ago we thought that it
>>> would be easier to catch the train to the station closest to our
>>> friends place (Caboolture), cost for 2 with concession was $51.00 one
>>> way, our train driver friend said that more than half of that was the
>>> airport train and we only traveled 2 stops on that part of the trip.
>>
>> Sydney airport train also charges a premium, $13.50 p/p if I remember
>> right and no concession (and the train is just a crappy suburban model).
>>
> Qld airport one is the same. Used to cost me about $27 to get to
> Woolloongabba.
>
In both cases, the airport station(s) is(are) privately owned

On 9/8/2023 4:43 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/08/2023 9:46 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 9/8/2023 8:42 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 9/08/2023 7:36 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 17:58:20 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/08/2023 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/08/2023 4:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Makes sense on a completely new system but no sense at all to
>>>>>>> replace
>>>>>>> an existing setup that is already environmentally friendly and very
>>>>>>> cost effective.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Yet that is precisely what the NSW gummint did. At HUGE cost, they
>>>>>> removed an existing heavy rail system and installed a light rail.
>>>>>> There
>>>>>> was and still is considerable angst from many Novacastrians.
>>>>>
>>>>> What NSW chooses to do has zero relevance to us down here.
>>>>
>>>> A typically short-sighted blurt from the Fraudster.
>>>>
>>>> Sensible States use NSW case histories as lessons in what *not* to do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> alvey
>>>> Recalling the NSW purchase of some new trains only to discover too late
>>>> that they were too wide for some tunnels. (Circa late last decade)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-02-25/new-brisbane-trains-too-big-for-tunnels/2202636 Not like Queensland hasn't stuffed up as well.
>>>
>>
>> I was talking to a Brisbane train driver friend last week and he
>> mentioned the stuff up with train drivers, supposedly to cut costs
>> they offered very lucrative early retirement to older drivers only to
>> create a driver shortage.
>> To try and quickly solve the problem they created they reduced driver
>> training so that new drivers are only trained to drive on half the
>> network, some Nth Sth, others East West which limits their ability to
>> be deployed anywhere on the network.
>> Also interesting is the cost of using the airport rail, because we
>> arrived at Brisbane airport early 3 weeks ago we thought that it would
>> be easier to catch the train to the station closest to our friends
>> place (Caboolture), cost for 2 with concession was $51.00 one way, our
>> train driver friend said that more than half of that was the airport
>> train and we only traveled 2 stops on that part of the trip.
>
> Sydney airport train also charges a premium, $13.50 p/p if I remember
> right and no concession (and the train is just a crappy suburban model).
>
You hit that premium if you enter or exit at either of the two airport
stations.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)