Talk:Trams in Melbourne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Size[edit]

There is a conflict between the "intro" section and the "fleet" section on the number of trams in the network. How many trams does Melbourne currently have???--60.242.47.8 (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


A quick question: it says Melbourne has the third largest tram network in world but nowhere on wikipedia can i find which two cities have bigger networks. does anyone know which cities they are?

  • They are European. Moscow is the largest from memory, I've been trying to locate the second for some time. Melbourne is definitely the biggest in the Anglosphere. SM247My Talk 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my impression that Milan is the biggest and Melbourne is next but if someone has some actual hard facts to deny or confirm this it would be nice.

The biggest tram systems in Poland are: Warsaw (470 km - 292 mi); Wrocław (258 km), Silesian_Interurbans (207 km, in 1970s - 235 km). I can't find any information on Moscow tram length. Tram system in Sankt Petersburg operated on 370 km of track, currently - 220 km. Information from various Wikipedia articles and sites on Polish trams. ----84.10.164.171 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size of network is a bit undefined. Total route length should only count shared sections like Swanston St & St Kilda Road once. Other big networks include Toronto, Milan, Bucharest, Warsaw etc.

Melbourne doesn't have the largest tram network in the world: for example Milan's size is 286.8 km, nearl 42 km more than Melbourne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.154.85 (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The largest tram network depends how you measure size. Is is route kilometres (that is, how long all the routes are; and, if so, do you count short routes that operate along a longer route, such as just to an intermediary depot, as separate or part of the longer route; or as an earlier commenter suggested, should it exclude all shared sections of route)? The length of all tracks (and, if so, does this include sidings etc not covered by route services)? The area covered? The number of vehicles? The total capacity of all vehicles? The number of passengers? People often think that statistics are impartial but, when you delve into them, you always find there's a good reason why they're grouped with lies and damned lies. Zoe Ocean 05:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe Buchanan (talk • contribs)

It is a perenial question among the tram buffs - some discussion can be found on Trams DownUnder http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TramsDownUnder/, I pulled together a list of tram systems for a recent study of th eMelbourne Tramways - reporuduced here to help with the debate.
City Population City area Total length or tramways (kms.) Number of vehicles Age of system References
Amsterdam 81 236 2007 http://www.gvb.nl/english/aboutgvb/facts-and-figures/Pages/facts-and-figures.aspx
Belgrave 127.3 150 1892 Wikipedia
Berlin 188 http://www.bvg.de/index.php/en/17106/name/Tram.html
Bucharest 143 506 http://www.ratb.ro/index.php?page=stats_cat
Budapest 153 911 2008 Wikipedia
Melbourne 4 million 8,806 km2 245 578 (inc. 38 W class) 1888 (cable) 1906 (electric) http://www.yarratrams.com.au/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-47//74_read-117/
Milan 4.3 million 2,370 km2 286.8 track 400+ 1881 (horse) 1893 (electric) http://www.lrta.info/articles/art0503.html - n.b. inc 1930s Peter Witt bogie cars
Moscow 10 million 1,081 km2 444 route 1870s (horse) 1899 (electric) http://tram.ruz.net/routes/routes.htm http://www.moscow.info/essentials/trams.aspx
Prague 1.3 million 144 968 1875 Wikipedia 2011
Saint Petersburg 228 791 2008 http://citybus.cz/praha/aktevid_dp-ed/index.htm (Russian)
Silesian Interurbans 2 million 342 371 1894 Trams & Interurbans in Silesia & Dabrowa Region - NB this is more an interurban rail system. http://historia.arch.p.lodz.pl/jw37/urbtr/sl-dabr-inurb.html
Sofia 1.2 million 492 km2 308, mostly single track 190 1901 http://www.skgt-bg.com/History/Tram_en.htm
St Petersberg 4.8 million 605.8 km2 C 280, previously 678 950 1863 horse 1907 electric Jane's Urban Transport Systems
Toronto 5.5 million 7,124 km2 305.8 route 156 double track 248 1861 (horse) 1894 (electric) Wikipedia 2008 http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Operating_Statistics/2008.jsp
Vienna 1.7 million 414.9 km2 179 556 or 799 1863 (horse) 1883 (steam) 1897 (electric) Wikipedia claims this is the third largest in the world http://world.nycsubway.org/eu/at/vienna.html2008; http://www.wien.gv.at/english/politics/statistics/pdf/public-transport.pdf
Zagreb 142 240 1891 (horse) 1902 (electric) Wikipedia
Zurich: 0.4 million 91.88 km2 79 317 1882 2008 http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/vbz/de/index/service/bookmark.html http://www.proaktiva.ch/tram/zurich/fleet.html#motormain
Garyvines (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although not the most used tram system in the world, we now have two citations, both from reputable sources that say that Melbourne has the largest system in the world, I'm not to sure if it's the largest by route KM, but in terms of actual track, Melbourne definitely seems to have the largest. Liamdavies (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History section wrong[edit]

The history section is wrong. Melbourne's cable trams operated from 1885 to 1940 (http://www.tramway.org.au/collection-cable.php). Prior to 1885 the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company was the Melbourne Omnibus Company, having started the first road-based fleet operation using horse-drawn buses (The People Movers: a History of Victoria's Private Bus Industry 1910-1992 by John Maddock 1992, Page 9). Horse-drawn trams operated in Melbourne from 1884 until 1923 (TMSV), but no mention of these is made on this page. In 1919 the Government formed the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board and began progressively taking over the cable-tram system and the numerous electric tram services established and operated by suburban councils and private companies, with the last being taken into Government control in 1922.

I'm not sure what the 1848 franchise refers to; as mentioned above, the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company was not called this at this time; furthermore, Victoria was still part of New South Wales at this time and the population did not start to boom until the gold rush of 1851, with most public transport developing taking place after this time. Could it be that '1848' should be '1884' perhaps? Zoe Ocean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe Buchanan (talk • contribs) 05:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W Class[edit]

It would be nice to have a picture of a W-class tram...

Hi Adam. Are you sure that move was wise?

We had a good little article about the W-class trams, now we have a disjointed mess. If you intend to do something with it, that's fine, but in its present state this entry would be better reverted. Better a competent article about a small subject than a poor one about a larger subject. Tannin

Once the bug that is preventing me editing is fixed, I will write a proper article about the whole tram system, of which the W-class is only a part, and not very meaningful to anyone who doesn't live in Melbourne. Adam 12:17, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Go to it! Tannin

Does this article really need the ", Australia" in its name? The main Melbourne article long ago changed from Melbourne, Australia; I think the city is significant enough to loose the suffix in page titles. Hypernovean 07:02, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Classes of Melbourne trams in service[edit]

I don't know exactly what they should be, but the dates in the table in this section are wrong. Philip J. Rayment 15:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They're meant to be an indication of the 'era' the trams were introduced in - if you can fix them up, please do so. T.P.K. 08:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A1 class[edit]

The article has picture of an A1 class tram, but the text has no reference to this class. Which is right?. -- Chris j wood 17:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Z class[edit]

There seems to me to be some differences in Z class trams, particularly door configuration (2 wide doors at front/middle vs 2 small (each end), 1 wide (central)). If anyone has more info on Z-class, it might be good to add it...? Natronomonas 05:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tram stop closures in CBD[edit]

Shouldn't it possibly be noted here about the stop closures in the CBD to make way for "more efficient" service with the Super-Stops? The other month their was actually a funeral for the stop on Collins and Exhibition street, I am searching for the program I had to upload onto this site, but I remember they placed the sign into a coffin and littered it with expired metcards then marched it to Spring Street to ask the Transport minister to bring it back to life... S.george 08:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


New Extended tram[edit]

At the risk of raising hackles.. I have noticed that there has been 'extended' lenght trams (at least one) introduced into the city recently.. (Its more than three sections) does anyone know about these.. would be a good additional note to make Abeorch 04:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future tram designs[edit]

The Melba 2011 model is currently being designed as a State government plan to upgrade tram services. (text now scrubbed)

Actually, not. It is part of a design competition held by United Group Rail (Goninan)/Alstom for an internship at Alstom's design HQ in France, only open to University students, and designs such as Melba 2011 have little to do with what the Government/Yarra Trams will eventually purchase, apart from any feedback and design decisions, such as those in Melba 2011.

Unlike the privatisation process where tenderers specified what rollingstock they would like the government to order for them, AFAIK the next one is open to anyone - *rumoured* to have local content+build as a preference - apparently Bombardier is chasing it. --Mcbridematt 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gauge[edit]

I think this article would benefit from adding the gauge of the tram rail network, with a comment that it is different from melbourne's heavy rail network gauge. --NcLean 25 September 2006

Good idea. Do you want to add that? Or would you rather someone else add it? See WP:Bold if you are not sure. Philip J. Rayment
Speaking of gauges, I would like to know what these trams run on? Uzaiyaro 11:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're standard gauge (1435mm). It's in one of the tram pages... maybe not this one yet.Natronomonas 10:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Tram network is 4' 8.5" Standard Gauge while the trains are 5' 3" Victorian Broad Gauge.
There appears to be a contradicton. See Talk:Trams in Melbourne#Question about rail gauge below. Peter Horn 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about rail gauge[edit]

Is it 63 or 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) gauge?? See Trams in Melbourne#Electric trams. Peter Horn 02:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Trams in Melbourne#gauge above. Peter Horn 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The track gauge is standard gauge. The part in the history section I assume you're referring to is talking about the VR street railway which was a separate network to the then-MMTB (now Yarra Trams) network and was closed in 1959. - invincible (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed policy on public transport[edit]

Please see User:Mangoe/Wikipedia_is_not_a_timetable for a proposed policy on public transport. Josh Parris#: 01:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combino Plus ???[edit]

Any info on the new Seimens Combino Plus [1] trams running on the network ? These things rock. --Biatch 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only on loan as a trial: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/government-to-buy-30-new-trains/2007/03/15/1173722655201.html Natronomonas 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map error[edit]

The 59 terminus is mislabelled. It should be Airport West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.79.144 (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Very slow" patronage increase in the late-1990s[edit]

This sentence in the "Rebirth" section puzzles me somewhat:

A very slow increase in patronage, beginning in the late 1990s, is solely due to the revival of the inner urban population.

Wouldn't a revival of "inner urban" (inner city?) population help tram patronage, where the network is most dominant and centers? How "inner" are we talking here, central business district? And wouldn't the events of the 1990s, with the industrial action, replacement of conductors with ticket machines, ticketing ('scratchies' followed by Metcard), and privatisation – all leading to whopping amounts of fare evasion – be the or at least a cause for a slow-er increase of patronage, as is written in the last sentence of the following paragraph? Patronage is typically measured by fare sales, so imagine if all those imbeciles bothered to buy tickets...  SEO75 [talk] 02:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing "very slow" from that sentence. My interpretation of the passage there was that due to gentrification and subsequent growth of the inner suburbs, passenger numbers had stopped declining and started increasing again. That's the important point, the rate of change less so. - invincible (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastlink Light Rail Reservation[edit]

The only source cited is a pdf factsheet that has a sentance saying "EastLink allows for future public transport initiatives including bus services and heavy and light rail." That doesn't sound anything like the claim made. LamontCranston (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you've now gone and added two tramlines in the north of your map without any supporting evidence for them, wtf? LamontCranston (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is it really the biggest network?[edit]

Milan, Italy has over 300 km of tram tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.20.178 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the figure in the article only accounts for length of route, Melbourne has double track so the actual amount of track is double. --Mcbridematt (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion needed[edit]

Some glaring omissions:

  • The Kew and Coburg horse tramways
  • Prahran and Malvern Tramways Trust
  • Melbourne, Brunswick and Coburg Tramways Trust
  • Hawthorn Tramways Trust
  • Fitzroy, Northcote and Preston Tramways Trust
  • Footscray Tramways Trust
  • Fleet ignores the Old A class (A, B, H, J, M & S classes - Single-truck California combination cars), C class (C, E, N & P classes - Maximum traction, bogie, drop-end and centre combination), G class (F, G, K, Q & R classes - Single-truck, straight-sill, closed combination cars), L class, O class, T class, U class, V class, Y/Y1 class, X/X1/X2 class, PCC cars and ex-Sydney K class converted to rail scrubbers.
  • The map should include all tram routes that have ever existed in Melbourne, not just current routes with current route numbers and fare zones. In other words, it should include routes which have been closed and dismantled (e.g. North Carlton (Rathdowne Street) cable line, West Melbourne cable line, Collingwood cable line, Windsor - St Kilda cable line, Elsternwick - Point Ormond line, Puckle Street line).

203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add what you can in those areas. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hook Turn[edit]

I believe there is at least Hook Turn in Adelaide, to cater for the Glenelg tram there. Can someone confirm? If so, article should be corrected. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.106.84 (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed extensions, St Kilda to Port Melbourne[edit]

Ok, I know this is original research, but the statement that a trip from St Kilda to Port Melbourne via Southbank on the current network would be around 20km is not correct. A Google Maps search shows that it's about 9km. 210.10.106.131 (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Privatisation[edit]

Is 'privatisation' the right word given that the Government still owns the business but contracts out responsibility for operating it? The Government itself calls the operations 'franchises', so perhaps this section would be better entitled 'franchising' or something similar? Zoe Ocean 22:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe Buchanan (talk • contribs)

File:Melbourne trams map.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Melbourne trams map.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split "Proposals for Network expansion" to a new page[edit]

The section "Proposals for Network expansion" takes up much of this page, and adds very little, many are proposals from a variety of different groups and it is really nothing more that a wish list of line extensions. I therefore suggest splitting the section to a new page titled something like; "Proposals for the expansion of Melbourne tram network". If any of these proposals become more than simply suggestions they should be brought back in a "Future" section that would include things that are variably about to happen to the network, such as the introduction of the Melbourne E class tram, or things that Yarra Trams wishes to, or will do to the network in the foreseeable future.

I recommend this as part of a general clean up of this article, as I think we should be aiming to get this to GA standard. If I don't hear any feedback within the next few weeks, I will assume there is no objection and be bold. Liamdavies (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section adds very little. However, I think there are two difficulties with your suggestion. First, I take the view that the content of this section is probably not notable enough to justify anything more than perhaps a bullet point list of proposals. They are, after all, just proposals. And if they are not really notable enough to justify a detailed discussion in the main page, then they are similarly not really notable enough to justify their own page. Secondly, I'm not sure what an appropriate name for the recommended new page might be. Your suggested name, it seems to me, simply emphasises the point I have just made, namely that mere proposals are not really notable enough in themselves. I am also not aware of any existing page with a similar name or similar content. I would therefore suggest that the solution to the problem you have identified is to thin out the section by reducing each proposal to a short bullet point. Finally, I agree that this article should be brought to GA standard. I will shortly be adding a sentence (with reference) confirming that the Melbourne tramway network is currently the biggest in the world, ahead of St Petersburg, Berlin, Moscow and Vienna, in that order. So it's clearly important enough to warrant a GA article. Regards, Bahnfrend (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I probably tend to agree with about the list of proposals not being notable enough to justify their own page, I guess my main thing is that they shouldn't be on this page, it seems completely un-encyclopedic. What would you think about condensing the whole lot into a paragraph along the lines of "over many years differing organisations such as the MMTB, PTUA, Australian Green Party, ALP and Liberal party have proposed extensions, although many of theses don't go beyond the proposal stage" but obviously cited, more elaborate, and more encyclopedic? I would advocate putting this, "Modernisation" and "Recent extensions" into one section labeled "Present" or "Recent events" as a sub heading of "History". What would think of this? Liamdavies (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of Bahnfrend's comment, which I tend to agree with, I now have a new proposal. As mentioned above, place "Modernisation" and "Recent extensions" into one section labeled "Present" or "Recent events" with a paragraph outlining that many organisations have been proposing extensions for ages, but that many do not come to fruition, and make the following moves/deletions:

Mode Connectivity Links - Moved to respective tram route pages (3, 6, 8, 16, 72)
Balwyn - Heidelberg - Delete, http://www.thepeopleplan.org.au/ is down, it hardly seems notable to be added if it was a political parties proposition for an election, and the page is down less than a year after the election, making citing it harder.
Burwood - Doncaster Hill - Delete, as above.
Sunshine - Highpoint - Delete, as above.
Moonee Ponds - Clifton Hill - Delete, as above.
South Melbourne - Toorak - Moved to a new Transport section in South Melbourne, Victoria (which would include what trams runs through South Melbourne), possibly mentioned on route 1 and 8 pages.
Carnegie Tram-Train link - Moved to route 67 page.
Knox City - Moved to route 75 page (most is already there, just fill in a few gaps).
Doncaster - References to route 48 moved to route 48 page, rest deleted as it's mentioned in Doncaster_railway_line
Eastlink Light Rail Reservation - Reference to rail reservation put in EastLink (Melbourne)
Port Melbourne proposals (including: St Kilda-Port Melbourne link and Fishermans Bend proposal) - Moved to Port Melbourne, Victoria#Rail
Melbourne - Footscray Light Rail Reservation - Moved to Docklands, Victoria#Transportation and mentioned in Footscray, Victoria#Town planning (already mentioned on route 86 page)
Williamstown - Moved to Williamstown, Victoria#Transport
Fawkner Extension - References to route 19 extension moved to route 19 page, rest deleted as its covered in Upfield railway line#History (I'll also added that it was proposed by the MBCTT in the late 1910's, I have a reference to that)

Thoughts fellow wikipedians? Liamdavies (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these suggestions. The main article and the individual route articles also need some more images. I have already changed the infobox image, and will be adding some other images soon. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have carried out the moves I suggested earlier, and removed the split template. I'll make some effort in placing "Modernisation" and "Recent extensions" into one section, probably called "Recent events" with a paragraph outlining that many organisations have been proposing extensions for ages when I get some more time, probably in the next couple of days. Liamdavies (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image queue[edit]

I formated and added pictures to the page, there was a huge stacking problem which I've now solved, but to avoid stacking and general layout issues at high resolutions (1920*1080) I had to remove two images of cable trams, so I'm creating an image queue here (I've put them in a gallery to avoid stacking on the talk page).

When/if the page gets big enough to fit these in they should be put back in the page. Liamdavies (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another picture for the image queue, it was causing (slight) stacking issues at (1920*1080) and probably isn't need in the article at the moment (again in a gallery to avoid stacking here).

  • The interior of a W-class tram in City Circle service
    The interior of a W-class tram in City Circle service

Liamdavies (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • W6.983 in its original MMTB green and cream livery at St Vincents Plaza siding.
    W6.983 in its original MMTB green and cream livery at St Vincents Plaza siding.

Another image to the queue. Liamdavies (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI[edit]

Hi all,

I probably have a slight COI, and would like input. I'm a member of a tramway preservation group, and am wondering about the use of this groups historical articles as citations and external links in this article. I also want to know whether it's acceptable to use Yarra Trams website (the history section) as citations in this page, I think that should be fine, but want to check. I'd appreciate feedback on this to know where I stand. Liamdavies (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E class trams[edit]

I've removed the following from the main article for two reasons, firstly the trams aren't running so it seems a little premature to place them in a section about the current fleet, and secondly they are already mentioned in "Recent" and much of the info is duplicated, when they are introduced they're section should be reinstated with pictures and more info.

Section removed;

E-class trams (Bombardier Flexity Swift)[edit]

The E class trams are planned to be introduced from 2012. They are being built by Bombardier Transportation in their Dandenong factory, with the propulsion systems and bogies coming from Bombardier’s factories in Germany. The trams have three articulated units and four bogies, measuring 33 metres long, Length: 33.45 m, 2.65 m wide and 3.65 m high, have 64 seats and a total passenger capacity of 210.[1] A $303 million order for 50 trams, with maintenance to 2017 and an option for a further 100 vehicles was announced on 29 September 2010.[2]

It is also proposed to upgrade the Preston Tram Workshops to accommodate both maintenance facilities and tram storage.[3]

  • External link and images - Vicsig

End of section removed. Liamdavies (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Yarra Trams, 'Melbourne’s newest tram – the story so far'
  2. ^ "EOI FOR MANUFACTURE AND SUPPLY OF 50 NEW TRAMS" (Press release). From the Premier. 6 July 2009. Retrieved 1 July 2012.
  3. ^ "Tram Procurement Program". Public Transport Victoria. Retrieved 19 April 2012.

Photos.[edit]

The infobox picture has been changed a few times as of late (including by me), and I wouldn't mind a discussion to sort out what should be there. I don't feel that the one currently there is very typical, it's of the two smallest and newest fleets operating (5 C2s, 21 D2s), which combined are still smaller than either W, Z1/2, Z3, A or B classes, even as far as low floors go, there are more of either C or D1 classes, which just doesn't seem that representative of; class variation, size/length of vehicle, lowfloor and age of fleet. I think this gives a false illusion of the system at first glance, which is what the info box is there to do. The location is also not very prominent and only shows one route, 96 which although busy, isn't the busiest. I think a photo from St Kilda Road or Swanston St with a few different classes on a few different routes would seem more appropriate (which is why I went out and took one outside Flinders Street Station, although I must stress I'm not welded to that photo). Thoughts? Liamdavies (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think it needs to be representative of the biggest, largest, or busiest, but rather an image of the subject in question, in this case - Melbourne trams. Even if they are small, they are still a Melbourne tram, and to me, they are the ones that I commonly see when I am in Melbourne, especially the C2 on the left. 101.103.29.58 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an image of the subject in question it should be representative of the system, not just a photo of a Melbourne tram, this is my complaint about the current photo in the infobox, it is a good photo, but would be more suited to the route 96 page infobox, as it represents the heart of that route, with the two trams that run it. As a side note C2s are not common, there are only 5 and they can only operate on route 96, out of a fleet of ~480, they are very rare, only a little more common than Z2s. Liamdavies (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took the C2/D2 image, and I agree that it's not very representative. I put it there mainly because the previous image, a D class in Bank of Melbourne wrap livery outside the Melb town hall, was just a bit too cheesy, and also not very representative (wrap liveried trams are not very common, and the individual designs for each advertiser are rare). I think the infobox image needs to be a good image, and representative, in that order. The C2/D2 image passes that test for the route 96 article, but we can probably find a better one for the main article. May I suggest this one? It's a good image, taken in Swanston Street on a rainy day, and features a Z3 and a B2, both in standard liveries. Yes, I took this one as well, and it's already in the Swanston Street article, but we can find another image to replace it there. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy the Swanston Street one. I'm partial to the current one and the rainy one because it has a very Melbourne feel to it. A tram along Collins or Swanston is a very iconic image which is why I personally believe the current image and the one suggested by Bahnfrend are great. 58.169.215.13 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the infobox photo to the one Bahnfrend suggested, but I must register my protest that the photo shows Melbourne raining, way to reinforce the stereotype!!! I would still like one that shows a little of Melbourne, maybe something that highlights something iconically Melbourne, not just the trams, but this is much better and much more representative. Thanks and good consensus people (I'm assuming both IPs are the same person, would you consider creating an account IP?). Liamdavies (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to, but I was blocked when I was new to Wiki and was uploading copyright images without even knowing/understanding. Now that I understand completely, it's frustrating not being able to upload my/Creative Commons images. 58.169.215.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Resources.[edit]

Someone just put a great article from 1916 in the lead, unfortunately it doesn't fit at all with the sentence it was meant to support, but here it is :[1] It will undoubtedly be of use later on, (probably in both cable trams and MMTB sections. Liamdavies (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editorialising[edit]

The text By the mid-1970s, as other cities became increasingly choked in traffic and air pollution, Melbourne was convinced that its decision to retain its trams was the correct one, even though patronage had been declining since the 1950s in the face of increasing use of cars and the shift to the outer suburbs, beyond the tram network's limits'. is no more than editorialising in its present vague and unsourced form. It doesn't say who in Melbourne (certainly not everyone), and if it did say who that would need to be sourced.

Certainly I lived in the middle suburbs of Melbourne in the 1970s, beyond the tram network, and many people had the attitude that it was an expensive anachronism kept on partly as a social service for poorer suburbs, partly through lack of backbone by various state governments in standing up to consituencies.

I would suggest that, since this is not an article on comparative forms of transport, the passage be removed. It is enough that it says the network remained operating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.189.157 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reprised vs Reprieved - Popular culture section[edit]

Pretty sure ″reprised ″ was meant here, as that means ″resumed or repeated″, whereas ″reprieved″ means ″cancelled (as of a punishment or sentence)″ - would only be appropriate if the Art programme had operated continuously, and then received a reprieve from a proposed scrapping at some point. 220.237.11.191 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map image missing permission[edit]

Melbourne tram system map image at c:File:Tramnetworkmap a4 final.pdf is pending speedy deletion as an instance of copyright violation due to missing evidence of permission. User:Pe88lz made this upload as hir only contribution to Commons. Could someone verify this in some way, or replace this file by an equivalent one? Tuvalkin (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Trams in Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Trams in Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Former Depots[edit]

I've finally narrowed down the location of the old East Coburg tram depot (North-eastern corner of Nicholson and Moreland rds) that closed in the 1950s. Shall I write an article up? Reynardo (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "The Passing of the Omnibus". The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957). Melbourne, Vic.: National Library of Australia. 1 July 1916. p. 5. Retrieved 20 July 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trams_in_Melbourne&oldid=1203319383"