Seriously, anybody who still thinks that either:
a) The light rail should be converted back to heavy rail (via a tunnel, or any other means possible);
or
b) The Casino should never have been built, and the St Kilda/ Port Melbourne lines should never have been converted in the first place;
is a naive, uneducated fringe dwelling fruitcake, who luckily for the rest of the state of Victoria, has absolutley no power to unleash their ridiculous nutjob ideas.

Seriously, grow up!

What's done is done. I understand St. Kilda being converted. I have reservations about Port Melbourne. I would have thought it would make sense for there to be a rail line to the Port, but the service to the public with trams is very good.

Fair enough bomber. I'll (slightly) modify my argument to:

The No. 96 tram is much better than the old St Kilda train line because:

* It runs more frequently (with shorter wait times for passengers) and
* Has stops all through the city (not just at a single place) and
* because it's longer at both ends and stops near popular destinations that did not exist when the rail line was built in 1857. This allows potential passengers to plan a trip to places like Luna Park, The Espy and Jeff's Shed that would not be possible without a very long walk if the train line still existed.

And to counter all your points:

* It's now effing slow to get out of the city and constantly overcrowded. It might be more frequent, but it's certainly not frequent enough when passengers are packed in like sardines between Swanston St and the Casino. So all up between the lack of frequency of the trains, and the slowness of the trams, I don't think anyone is getting anywhere any quicker.
* Those stops throughout the city were still there before, it's just that people had to change vehicles. You know, just like they have to do now if they're at Flinders St, or Melbourne Central, and want to go to St Kilda. Just because the route now runs up Bourke St doesn't mean that it's instantly accessible to everyone. Should we replace the Frankston Line with a light rail and run it up Bourke St too?
* Those "longer at both ends" destinations existed before the light rail was put in. Don't believe me? Go have a look at Melway Edition 1: St Kilda and Brunswick and Clarendon St. All people had to do was change vehicles. JUST LIKE THEY HAVE TO DO TO GO ANYWHERE THAT ISN'T ON THE SAME LINE. I'm sorry, your argument is just really, really stupid. They could always have got to Luna Park, or Jeff's Shed or The Espy because those tram lines had been there for decades prior to the light rail.

In my opinion Light rail should never have gone ahead. Those lines were cut off and the land sold (casino site) by greedy politicians.


Don't quote gradients to me unless you show me your capable of such calculations and planning. I suggested an idea, I don't personally give a smeg about the project because I think the original tunnel proposal was better. There are quite a few here on Railpage that are planning nazi's and it wrecks the forum especially when a lot of topics get turned into tram talk and boring rants about public transport planning. And the certain people that act like bullies and condescending twats don't get much respect from me.

@ Hot Axle Box, the Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines were converted in 1987 by the then Labor Government. As the Sandridge Bridge was cut off and the Bridge over Queensbridge Street removed, rail services direct to Flinders Street were no longer possible, and the former Rail Alignment was left empty. Moves to make to a casino did not eventuate until 1992 when J Kennett won the election

@GMan, the Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines were converted not because the ALP had a brainwave and thought that Light Rail was better, but they thought it was uneconomic to repair the Sandridge Rail Bridge, so they built a spur off Clarendon Street, along Whiteman Street to link up existing tram routes with the Port and St Kilda Lines. Who knows if that bridge wasn't in such disrepair the Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines might still be heavy rail. And it is not a conversion to light rail, all signals were removed and it was simply a conversion to a tram.

Michael

Mejhammers1.

Don't patronize me I used to travel on that line, I know its history and what happened, and there was nothing wrong with Sandridge bridge. the St Kilda line used to link with the Sandringham line during weekdays. it could have been the case in this day and age, but in the early 80's it was the politically hip thing to look like you were saving money on public transport on lines at the time that were not making money. very short sighted they were.

@GMan, the Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines were converted not because the ALP had a brainwave and thought that Light Rail was better, but they thought it was uneconomic to repair the Sandridge Rail Bridge, so they built a spur off Clarendon Street, along Whiteman Street to link up existing tram routes with the Port and St Kilda Lines. Who knows if that bridge wasn't in such disrepair the Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines might still be heavy rail. And it is not a conversion to light rail, all signals were removed and it was simply a conversion to a tram.

Michael

I never mentioned it was done on an ALP brainwave. All I'm saying is that it was done over 25 years ago, we're more than better off for it being done and it's time for people to get over it.

Furthermore for others to suggest that it was done so they (whoever 'they' are) could build a ruddy big Casino is pure nonsense, and to suggest we (Victorians in general) would be better off with out said casino, thats even more nonsense.

I never mentioned it was done on an ALP brainwave. All I'm saying is that it was done over 25 years ago, we're more than better off for it being done and it's time for people to get over it.

Furthermore for others to suggest that it was done so they (whoever 'they' are) could build a ruddy big Casino is pure nonsense, and to suggest we (Victorians in general) would be better off with out said casino, thats even more nonsense.

Gman, maybe the Brainwave thing was the wrong choice of words and for that I apologise. I am merely pointing out the circumstances of the Heavy Rail being replaced with a tram, partly economics, partly circumstantial.

I did point out that Casino has no bearing on what happened, it was built on that site 8 years after the whole heavy rail infrastructure was removed.

Michael

Mejhammers1.

Don't patronize me I used to travel on that line, I know its history and what happened, and there was nothing wrong with Sandridge bridge. the St Kilda line used to link with the Sandringham line during weekdays. it could have been the case in this day and age, but in the early 80's it was the politically hip thing to look like you were saving money on public transport on lines at the time that were not making money. very short sighted they were.

Hot Axle Box, apologies if I had sounded patronising, the fact remains that something needed to be done about the bridge which is an iron bridge and corroded in parts, and with the smeg falling out of Victoria's economy the Government did not want to spend money patching it up, an there were problems with Platform 11 at Flinders Street, so they closed the bridge and converted the line. No lines make money, how can they with the low levels of fares paid, but the Government of the day felt that the St Kilda and Port Melbourne lines being short length can be served by Trams.

For what it is worth, I agree with some of what you say, I use the St Kilda 96 Tram and its crowded to the point of Trams being unable to pick up passengers at some stops.

Michael

It's crowded because it actually has a service frequency. Could they use more trams? Absolutely! But the trains were under capacity, because the frequency was abysmal.
If the trains were still running at their old frequency, I could have walked into the city faster than catching the train from South Melbourne (my old stop).

Furthermore for others to suggest that it was done so they (whoever 'they' are) could build a ruddy big Casino is pure nonsense

Of course it was. Do you have any idea how much money the government makes from that casino? I don't buy the rubbish about there being a few years in between the two events for a second, and neither would anyone else who understands that the two major Australian political parties are as cunning as $hithouse rats.

Of course it was. Do you have any idea how much money the government makes from that casino? I don't buy the rubbish about there being a few years in between the two events for a second, and neither would anyone else who understands that the two major Australian political parties are as cunning as $hithouse rats.

Oooh, I do love a good conspiracy theory!

Of course it was. Do you have any idea how much money the government makes from that casino? I don't buy the rubbish about there being a few years in between the two events for a second, and neither would anyone else who understands that the two major Australian political parties are as cunning as $hithouse rats.

I have never doubted that the events were related.

Oooh, I do love a good conspiracy theory!

Yep, tin foil hats at the ready!