Here's one I prepared earlier

[Mal Rowe]

For no particular reason, here's a pic I made exactly 56 years ago.

It was a Caulfield race day and I was in the SE suburbs watching trams
(as was my occasional habit).

478 was built as a W1 in 1928, was converted to an SW2 in 1938 and ran
until 1978.

It ended up in Memphis.

Mal Rowe

[David McLoughlin]

Mal wrote and posted pic of W2478 in Malvern Rd:

>  For no particular reason, here's a pic I made exactly 56 years ago.

So just before the 7 became 72, before tail-lights were fitted, and before the concrete relay of that long stretch of Malvern Rd. Truly a historic moment in time.

[Jeremy Wainwright]

David's catalogue of changes reminds me of a question that has puzzled me for some time: why did route 7 become route 72 (and also, as I have learned today,73)?

A pretty unsatisfactory explanation appears in the Tramway Topics section of the November 1970 issue of Electric Traction:

'A rationalisation of transport route [numbers]used in Melbourne has resulted in the allotment of numbers 1-99 for trams, 101-299 for M.M.T.B. buses and private buses 301 onwards.

In connection with this, as from 1^st November, some route numbers have been changed. The new route numbers are:

... 

72 - Camberwell-City

73 - Camberwell Junction-City (via Burke Road).'

The other changes (omitted here) are not remarkable but the abandonment of 7 (part of the foundational St Kilda Rd scheme) in favour of numbers that have Riversdale Rd connotations has always struck me as odd.

Subsequently the rationalisation of 1970 was regrettably subverted by the creation of route 109, when 42 would have sufficed, and the St Kilda Rd scheme was (not unreasonably) disturbed by the fusion of 8 and 55 to form 58.

Does anyone have any further information on the 7/72 and 42/109 decisions?

JWW

'

---

From: tramsdo...@googlegroups.com <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of David McLoughlin <mcloug...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 12 January 2026 08:20
To: TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Re: Here's one I prepared earlier

 

Mal wrote and posted pic of W2478 in Malvern Rd:

>  For no particular reason, here's a pic I made exactly 56 years ago.

So just before the 7 became 72, before tail-lights were fitted, and before the concrete relay of that long stretch of Malvern Rd. Truly a historic moment in time.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tramsdownunde...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/29fa942a-5c91-49c6-872b-ddb24f9e8a09n%40googlegroups.com.

[David McLoughlin]

Jeremy wrote:

>  David's catalogue of changes reminds me of a question that has puzzled me for some time: why did route 7 become route 72 (and also, as I have learned today,73)?

My recollection from the time (I was at school but had an early interest in matters tram) is that it was to have all Camberwell Depot trams with similar numbers, hence 70 (Wattle Park) and 74 (Burwood) which were the existing numbers.

There were changes at Glenhuntly too,  Carnegie became 67 to match 64 East Brighton. What was Carnegie till then? 4a? 

I think Box Hill became 109 all the way when the extension to there opened, because Port Melbourne was 109. The Port Melbourne tram originally ran up Bourke Street IIRC to Exhibition and not out to Cotham Road/Mont Albert via Collins Street.

Yes it was a shame to lose the number 42. 

dmcl.

[Mal Rowe]

On 12/01/2026 16:45, David McLoughlin wrote:
> There were changes at Glenhuntly too,  Carnegie became 67 to match 64
> East Brighton. What was Carnegie till then? 4a?
>

Carnegie was 4 and East Malvern Darling Rd was 4D - the famous four
penny tram!

4A, 4B and 4E  were short workings along Glenhuntly Rd.

Mal Rowe remembering when 58 was the Showgrounds short working on 57.

[Andrew Highriser]

The 109 is an odd one, being the only three numeral tram route in Melbourne now after the 112 West Preston to St Kilda became the 11, West Preston to Victoria Harbour. The 111, Port Melbourne to Exhibition, disappeared when the 109 began. Given the 48 and 109 share tracks and travel in similar directions, it would make sense for the 109 to be the 42. 

But what would really make sense is a whole route renumbering into something logical rather than historical.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tramsdownunde...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/ff95e7e3-1e0c-4468-a0fd-9f8564f2d812n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mal Rowe]

On 12/01/2026 18:21, Andrew Highriser wrote:
> The 109 is an odd one, being the only three numeral tram route in
> Melbourne now after the 112 West Preston to St Kilda became the 11,
> West Preston to Victoria Harbour. The 111, Port Melbourne to
> Exhibition, disappeared when the 109 began. Given the 48 and 109 share
> tracks and travel in similar directions, it would make sense for the
> 109 to be the 42.

 I understand that Port Melbourne (109) is to be through routed with
Bundoora (86).

Following the precedent of West Coburg (55) to Toorak (8) a possible new
route number could be 89.

Mal Rowe - guessing wildly

[noe...@iinet.net.au]

When I am driving 891 at Whiteman Park, I run to old destinations :-

Kew Cotham Road (69)
Toorak Glenferrie Road (8)
South Melbourne Beach (16)

and so on. 891 has a Malvern desto box at one end and a South Melbourne one at the other. So far this year, we have had no trams on 6 days because they have been total fire ban days. To be expected at this of the year.

Noel in Perth.

[Mal Rowe]

On 12/01/2026 20:38, noelmel via TramsDownUnder wrote:
> When I am driving 891 at Whiteman Park, I run to old destinations :-
>
> Kew Cotham Road (69)
> Toorak Glenferrie Road (8)
> South Melbourne Beach (16)

For those interested, here's a list of Melbourne route numbers from the
1960s and my pic of a 'Four penny' tram from that era.

Mal Rowe - perhaps a bit too focussed?

[espee8800]

For those interested, here's a list of Melbourne route numbers from the
1960s and my pic of a 'Four penny' tram from that era.

Mal Rowe - perhaps a bit too focussed?

--

cheers and best wishes,
David in Avenel.au,    
[Before you change anything, learn why it is the way it is.]

Virus-free.www.avg.com

[Vera Mills]

Hello,
If Australia decimalized on 14 February 1966 (St Valentine's Day), why
was route 4D not changed to 4C?
Regards,
Glen Mills

[Mal Rowe]

On 13/01/2026 11:52, Vera Mills wrote:
> If Australia decimalized on 14 February 1966 (St Valentine's Day), why
> was route 4D not changed to 4C?
> Regards,
> Glen Mills

Responding in the same vein as this posting ...

It was not possible as there was no letter C on the route number box roll.

Boom boom!

[bblun...@yahoo.com]

4d became 3c in the new rounding rules.

Brian

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tramsdownunde...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/CADMuMG0puSFz7cWw8pq6rhWeUVhf-E8t%3Do%2B0x2VFtAW0B1YF1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vera Mills]

Hello Mal,
Thanks, you have sort of answered my next question which is why the
numeral 3 was also not used.
My understanding is because the C and 3 were similar to other letters
and numbers?
I have never seen in writing why this was so.
Regards,
Glen Mills

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tramsdownunde...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/b145f351-1bad-4277-926b-4e1d1be490a5%40gmail.com.

[Peter Bruce]

It seems to me that maybe route numbers are less relevant today. The point of route numbers on the loading side of the tram was that they were big and able to be seen at a distance in a queue of trams so intending passengers  were able to position themselves at the stop or safety zone when their tram actually stopped and it helped operationally too as it helped avoid the need to stop twice at busy City stops. Later classes have the route number on the other side so they are only visible when the tram is close. I suppose on the other hand the days of inspectors supervising busy stops and three trams across on every traffic light cycle are long gone and nowadays we have PIDs at busy stops. Sorry, a messy argument, but hopefully I've made a point.

Peter Bruce.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tramsdownunde...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/CAGmZ6yPJVtBJ1a0Nk%2BDsCDh8uJtADD3AcarYy6chLQUYftVMAw%40mail.gmail.com.

[espee8800]

When spoken 3 and C sound very similar hence let's not use either.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 at 12:03, Vera Mills <gleng2...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Mal,
Thanks, you have sort of answered my next question which is why the
numeral 3 was also not used.
My understanding is because the C and 3 were similar to other letters
and numbers?

[Hal Cain]

4C?  Hmm.  No "C" on route number roll!

MMTB managers must have had poor eyesight.  No C because it could have been confused with 0; 3 not used because it could have been confused with 5 or 8.

Other notes against the 1960s list Mal posted:

4A   When trams began to be scheduled to shunt at Truganini Rd (to avoid conflicts on the single line) 4A was used for these

4, 4B, 5, 6, 7/7D, 8  also used for trips via William St

2A, 4, 5, 6, 7, 64 also used for trips extended to University 

9, 11  also used for trips via La Trobe St

18   Brunswick (also Brunswick Depot ex City)

27   Hawthorn - Spencer St (via Flinders St) seldom used after Burwood line was changed to run via Bridge Rd & Flinders St

28   Richmond - Spencer St; also used for Kew Depot from Flinders St (Down trips)

42   Mont Albert - City; also used for trips via La Trobe St

48   North Balwyn - Spencer St; also used for trips via La Trobe St (which ran via Victoria St/Victoria Parade)

50, 54, 57, 58, 60  via North Melbourne  (no route number for occasional trips via Haymarket)

76   Camberwell Junction - City (Princes Bridge via Swan St) also used for Camberwell Depot; when Burwood (74, 75) was altered to Bridge Rd/Flinders St, also used on that route

The only depot destination that had a distinct route number of its own was Kew Depot (47).  (When the Victoria St line was opened, 47 was originally allocated to Victoria Bridge, but those short workings were soon altered to run to Kew Depot, and Victoria Bridge lost its route number until the 70s.)

Other depot workings mostly made do with the number of the closest intermediate terminus  (4B, 61 for Glenhuntly; 5A or 6B for Malvern; 50 for Essendon via North Melbourne; 89 for Preston) or ran with no route number (Hanna St Depot/South Melb Depot via Swanston St, also via William St; Essendon Depot via Elizabeth St or William St). Other short workings usually ran with no route number.

Hal Cain, remembering

Virus-free.www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tramsdownunde...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/CADMuMG0puSFz7cWw8pq6rhWeUVhf-E8t%3Do%2B0x2VFtAW0B1YF1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bob Pearce]

Hi all again,

 

I guess also that the days of a bunch of trams arriving at a city stop have long gone as well.

 

I remember seeing a bunch of trams at a stop in Swanston St during the peak especially all going to different destinations and the only way one could tell was by the desto number.

 

Given the desto number is usually only visible when the tram is up close does not help, but also I don’t think that trams behave like grapes any more, and arrive in bunches.

 

Bob in Perth

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/CAADfMwp6LajUO6xYBH_%2BoZFt127iChtV2F2ho5%2BTJh0VJBySKA%40mail.gmail.com.

[espee8800]

Oh yes they do. Recently a Kiwi mate and I decided to do the 57 & 82 and return from Footscray by train. Halfway along Raleigh Road the car traffic was so thick that there were three 57s heading west bunched, and 57 and an 82 headed the other way all gathered together. I reckon that this is a regular occurrence along this road. Yep Melbourne trams still bunch.

I might add that when an 82 eventually turned up at the junction, it was not alone as there was another 82 behind it. Eventually the leading tram terminated at the River St shunt at Gordon St and we all decanted onto the other 82 which by now could barely fit every one in.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 at 13:42, 'Bob Pearce' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 

Given the desto number is usually only visible when the tram is up close does not help, but also I don’t think that trams behave like grapes any more, and arrive in bunches.

 

--

cheers and best wishes,
David in Avenel.au,    
[Before you change anything, learn why it is the way it is.]

Virus-free.www.avg.com

[Greg Sutherland]

Well NSW tramways, who never had route numbers, were still able to carry over o million passengers per day in Sydney for decades.  Initial 'long distance' destination signalling was by destination colours and symbols with scrip tdetails to be seen on closed approach.

Greg

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/CAADfMwp6LajUO6xYBH_%2BoZFt127iChtV2F2ho5%2BTJh0VJBySKA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mal Rowe]

On 13/01/2026 14:53, 'Greg Sutherland' via TramsDownUnder wrote:

Well NSW tramways, who never had route numbers, were still able to carry over o million passengers per day in Sydney for decades.  Initial 'long distance' destination signalling was by destination colours and symbols with scrip tdetails to be seen on closed approach.

Did any other Australian tramway network have route numbers?

Brisbane, as I recall, had destination numbers.

Route numbers were partly an aid to easy recognition at a distance and to enable those who could not read to catch the right tram.

• Melbourne cable trams used coloured panels and fittings on the tram for this purpose.
• The Essendon trams used large single letters, M for Maribyrnong River, K for Keilor Rd and R for Racecourse.
• Adelaide, P&MTT and Coburg copied Sydney and used coloured destination signs.

P&MTT introduce route numbers in 1913 as their system expanded.

Mal Rowe attaching the official drawing for the MB&CTT original destination roll.

[Mal Rowe]

On 13/01/2026 12:11, Peter Bruce wrote:
>  Later classes have the route number on the other side so they are
> only visible when the tram is close.

Having the route number on the wrong side was one of the consequences of
buying trams 'off the shelf' from Europe.

That has been fixed on the Citadis trams, but not the Combinos.

Mal Rowe attaching evidence that 'bunching' in Swanston St is not a
thing of the past.

[John Radcliffe]

Mal says "Adelaide, P&MTT and Coburg copied Sydney and used coloured destination signs."

Adelaide used "Sydney style" coloured destination signs, then replaced them in 1917 with route numbers (Adelaide 1-23, Port Adelaide 24-28) with use of new similar sized "Sydney type" boxes generally on the top right corner of the canopy roof adjacent to the clerestory roof. Later trams (Type F, F1, G, H, H1 and the E1 conversions) had no provision for number blinds. Route numbers were not provided on coupled A type trams, but remained on those never coupled, and were reinstated when  coupled cars were singled again after November 30 1950 - John Radcliffe

---

From: tramsdo...@googlegroups.com <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mal Rowe <mal....@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 January 2026 4:06 PM
To: tramsdo...@googlegroups.com <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Melbourne route numbers in Perth

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tramsdownunde...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/ca9c5741-bf84-462e-a5ee-1b45e14658bb%40gmail.com.

[Mal Rowe]

On 13/01/2026 19:18, John Radcliffe wrote:

Adelaide used "Sydney style" coloured destination signs, then replaced them in 1917 with route numbers (Adelaide 1-23, Port Adelaide 24-28) with use of new similar sized "Sydney type" boxes generally on the top right corner of the canopy roof adjacent to the clerestory roof. Later trams (Type F, F1, G, H, H1 and the E1 conversions) had no provision for number blinds. Route numbers were not provided on coupled A type trams, but remained on those never coupled, and were reinstated when  coupled cars were singled again after November 30 1950 - John Radcliffe

Thanks John,

Interesting topic that has arisen - given the almost universal application of route numbers to bus routes I have been surprised to realise how uncommon that practice was in trams.

I guess that tram routes were well known and 'trusted' whereas the 'flexibility' of buses meant they could turn off anywhere.

Mal Rowe

[Mick Duncan]

Gday  All

When I was at Camberwell,mid 60s,we ran River St (Hawthorn Bridge} to Spencer St after the morning peak till about lunch time,using 28 as the route No

Cheers,    Mick 2861

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/CAN%3DqqcT-uPY1pv%3DOic5k3dB_XHZpz%3Dg6O_Cn2FHh%3DvMSkHynww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mick Duncan]

Gday  Bob, All

In Melb we called the tram bunches bananas

Cheers,    Mick

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/!%26!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAANRI7VTqU3JFnERogu%2BjMZDCgAAAEAAAADyjg3JuYP1BkgUpzGomm/QBAAAAAA%3D%3D%40iinet.net.au.