Re: [TramsDownUnder] Extension of Melbourne tram routes to meaningful termini

[Richard Youl]



As someone who actually rides the entire tramway during over a few annual visits, I tend to wonder how many extra passengers would result.  

The Box Hill extension is a point in question.

On such a long route, C1 type trams seem much too tiny. While I have not ridden at the height of the peak, I did so around 4 pm a couple of years ago, and beyond Richmond the tram coped very nicely with passengers at that time. Plenty of people rode just a few stops. I doubt if anyone besides myself got anywhere near Box Hill all the way from city. Obviously things get busy at school exit times as well.  The last time I was at Box Hill, there was quite a long walk from tram to rail station thanks to the Suburban Rail Loop works.

Out beyond Mont Albert, the peak hour passenger flow was in the opposite direction. People caught the train to Box Hill from the city then rode the tram a number of stops back to their homes towards Mount Albert and maybe a little further. Morning peak would be the opposite with residents taking the tram to the station rather than suffer the rather slow tram ride to town coping with dozens of traffic lights without priority.  How many of these people were already using Tram or Train before the extension is unknown.

Similarly South Yarra has forever been a tram to Train interchange particularly in the peak hours for the faster train ride to the city. Caulfield is another interchange where the Train is used to get to the city and tram passenger flow then radiates in both directions.

 The video made mention of extending the 67 Carnegie line to Carnegie rail station but with the transfer point already at Glenhuntly, not many people would benefit. 

No doubt there are a few other places where people change between tram and Train for a faster ride to into or out the city.

Extending Glen Iris is unlikely to attract any more people. 

It’s debatable whether large suburban shopping centres attract many tram passengers. Most people use their cars to cart home their purchases. Certainly the weekly grocery shopping is not often done by tram unless the shopper has one of those Melbourne specialties – a shopping jeep! (often a wooden box mounted on the undercarriage of a baby pram!) 

One interchange which would be worth creating would be between the 75 tram and Alamein where the 2 cross between Hartwell and Burwood. It is a very slow tedious tram ride from Vermont South to City.

Nevertheless there may be options worth investigating but I heard something a few years ago which, if true, would prevent almost all suggestions, and that is a policy of not building any new street tramways in Melbourne with most roads too narrow for tram segregation. 

Richard

On 5 Jun 2026, at 3:29 pm, 'TP' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



When the video mentioned increased tram congestion in the CBD, I did wonder if those extensions would actually result in that many more trams on the routes. I don't think extra trams on the route would be so much the result of the extra route length as the result of increasing the frequency of service along the route in response to (or to boost) patronage. But yes, there is a need to through-route in the CBD. 

Tony P

On Friday, 5 June 2026 at 14:28:18 UTC+10 Mal Rowe wrote:

Hi Tony,

Some good points here - and the various 'missing links' have been pushed for many years by the PTUA and the Greens.

So why have they not been built.  I don't know but have some ideas.

• As the author of the video says, local shopping centre people are likely to object - especially if they don't realise that PT brings customers to their door.
• It is not clear that there is a big demand for transfers between PT modes at most of these locations.
• Other priorities (like the SRL) are soaking up resources from the PT budget.

The city congestion problem is well recognised - in both Swanston St and Elizabeth St.  One likely change to help with Elizabeth St is to through route 57 with one of the southern destinations.  That would make Elizabeth St better without adding an extra route to Swanston St.

One Swanston St solution that has been proposed and even promised with a construction date was to link the Park St track serving route 58 with Clarendon St which would enable a southern route to be moved from Swanston St to Spencer St ... with the side benefit of providing a service along the full length of Spencer St as far as LaTrobe St.  That did not happen and again I don't know why, but my guess is that the Govt found that few of the southern route passengers wanted to be taken to the western end of the CBD rather than the centre.

Mal Rowe - surmising

On 04/06/2026 20:53, 'TP' via TramsDownUnder wrote:

One of the great frustrations of the Melbourne system. Why do so many lines finish just short of train stations or shopping malls and why don't they extend them? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiAtpCloo1Y

I can hear from the narrative to this video that there's a lot of defeatist thinking and still a hang-up about inhibiting car traffic.

Spot the Adelaide tram.

Tony P

--

--
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/ea10d97f-cfba-44de-a429-eeaaef51a50en%40googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Highriser]

In spite of a recent petition to Parliament about abandoning the Metro Tunnel, and for the Pakenham/Cranbourne trains to return to the old tracks and service South Yarra and Richmond Stations, the Metro tunnel is a done deal, with the line not servicing either station. There were always going to be winners and losers with the Metro Tunnel, and the time to protest has passed.

I essentially agree with you about tram extensions. The expenditure as against the extra passengers in very middle class areas where people use cars to get everywhere is not viable. The bus service at Chadstone needs to be the focus, not a tram extension.

Your remarks about Box Hill Station are interesting, the evening peak reverse flow of passengers on the 109.

Spot on about Hartwell too. While it is a bit uphill, it is better to walk to Burwood Station than Hartwell Station. One of the stations should be closer to the 75 tram route.    

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/C1D101E5-672F-44F6-AC08-B151057136ED%40icloud.com.

[Malcolm Miles]

 

Linking the 72 to the 48 would seem a no-brainer. It would allow those of us who live in North Balwyn easy access to Camberwell station and the shopping centre.

 

Best wishes,

Malcolm

 

[TP]

Melbourne has a policy of not building any new street tramways? If true, I can see that there are more differences between Melbourne and Sydney thinking than the pronunciation of "reservoir"!  If any city has streets too narrow for tram separation it's Sydney, yet we got, at least on two lines, new, separated street tramways. The reason seems to me that NSW is willing to prioritise public transport over cars, but Victoria is still back in the motoring age - politically sensitive to how motorists might be upset. Experience around the world is that, if public transport takes road space away from motorists, rather than rising up in angry revolt, motorists typically just accept it and adopt alternatives - another route, or even change to public transport. Traffic congestion and shortage of parking are the greatest incentives to changing to public transport.

Tony P. 

[Richard Youl]

If the policy is in fact to build no new unsegregated street tramlines in Melbourne, how could you build the suggested tram line from the Carnegie tram terminus which is just metres back on the left to Carnegie rail station? 

Actually I think the matter of segregation was mentioned a few years ago in these pages when someone suggested the 96 should turn right at the end of Acland St and follow the old VR tram to the south.  Someone then mentioned the ban on new mixed running. 

Google provided this: “Future developments focus on segregating the tracks for faster, more reliable, and accessible journeys rather than building traditional shared-road tracks.”

Richard

On 6 Jun 2026, at 9:13 am, 'TP' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



--

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/12585959-9075-42b8-83ee-5cbf120ac390n%40googlegroups.com.

[TP]

In Sydney, that Koornang Rd situation would see parking removed and transferred to side streets. Also a more direct route extending Glenhuntly Rd via Graceburn Ave and some property resumptions. 

Tony P

(from a city that doesn't usually tippy-toe around)

[Stuart Keenan]

What’s the difference between Sydney and Melbourne in how they approach transport projects?

Nothing.

In Sydney all your rail based projects are inevitably mired in controversy, they’re disruptive and go over time and over budget. The Metro and light rail are but the latest examples. The government can afford to close a small number of inner city streets to honour their Green commitments and appear to enhance tramway operations because motorists and the road lobby are appeased by the massive system of toll roads and motorways that are now up and running. Have a look at google maps, why does Sydney need rail projects when everyone can drive/taxi/uber to within a few feet of where they need to go?

Meanwhile in Melbourne we have….

Exactly the same! 

While the rail system has suffered constant disruption in recent years due to level crossing removals and works associated with the metro tunnel (which opened late last year but is regularly closed for “maintenance”) not to mention regular bustituition for ‘rail improvement works’, the road people have delivered the Westgate tunnel with its massive freeway widening at the west end and a spaghetti junction of flyovers at the North Melbourne. Now they’re getting on with the Northeast link between the northern ring road, Eastern Freeway and Eastlink with its own massive system of tunnels and overpasses. At least they’re upgrading the Eastern Freeway busway as part of it.

And in common with Sydney, a road project in Melbourne may be somewhat controversial and run late and over budget but once it’s open, it’s open and will rarely if ever completely close for maintenance. The worst you normally get are 40km/h work zones in the middle of the night. Compare that with rail and tram projects which are no sooner opened then they reclose for the obligatory and ever present maintenance.

It makes you wonder how they ever managed to convert the systems from steam to electric back in the day!

Stuart 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/621b77ab-2b81-40bb-a5a4-e97605a12b42n%40googlegroups.com.

[TP]

OK, and yet despite that overall similarity and both cities having pretty-much the same population, why are there 228 million more passenger journeys per year (2024-25 figures) by public transport in Sydney than in Melbourne - almost 50% more, that's a yawning difference. Sydney is doing something successfully with public transport that Melbourne isn't, despite all Sydney's motorways "to the door".

Tony P 

(not intending to put Melbourne down, just looking for answers)

[Bob Pearce]

Probably because the bull sh!t way in which projects are planned, implemented, and managed, and are vastly micromanaged by the bean counters, to the extent that it is surprising that any project is ever completed at all, let alone within time and budget constraints.

 

AFAIK, there has not been one project anywhere in Oz that has involved rail, road, or both as a combined venture, that has ever been completed on time and on budget.

 

Watching the way that jobs are being done these days with Work Safe, OH&S, the Unions, and the do-gooders, all getting involved for their two cents worth, it is surprising that anything gets done at all.

 

Don’t get me wrong, safety is paramount in any project, BUT if a section of railway (or tramway for that matter) is given over to the construction people in a working station or yard, then start the job and get it done.

 

Back in the steam days in the west, a scissors crossover, with a double compound set of points at one end of the crossover, was replaced in one weekend, that is two days, Saturday and Sunday just to be clear in everyone’s mind.

 

The original sets were disconnected from the signal box, dis-assembled and removed from the area by loading the bits into a bogie goods wagon parked near the worksite. The replacement sets were put into position, connected to the 5 sets of lines at the ends of the scissors crossover and double compound, connected to the interlocking of the signal box, tested and had trains running over it by midnight on the Sunday evening.

 

Under the current wasteful methodology, it would take a full weekend just to disconnect the scissors crossover, let alone, remove it, and replace it with the new set, connect, test and bring the replacement into use.

 

There have been examples where it has taken two (2) weekends just to replace one simple crossover; that is one weekend to replace one end, and the second weekend to replace the other. Absolutely wasteful in terms of time and money.

 

FWIW.

 

 

From: tramsdo...@googlegroups.com <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Stuart Keenan
Sent: Saturday, 6 June 2026 2:02 PM
To: tramsdo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Extension of Melbourne tram routes to meaningful termini

 

What’s the difference between Sydney and Melbourne in how they approach transport projects?

 

Nothing.

 

In Sydney all your rail based projects are inevitably mired in controversy, they’re disruptive and go over time and over budget. The Metro and light rail are but the latest examples. The government can afford to close a small number of inner city streets to honour their Green commitments and appear to enhance tramway operations because motorists and the road lobby are appeased by the massive system of toll roads and motorways that are now up and running. Have a look at google maps, why does Sydney need rail projects when everyone can drive/taxi/uber to within a few feet of where they need to go?

 

Meanwhile in Melbourne we have….

 

Exactly the same! 

 

While the rail system has suffered constant disruption in recent years due to level crossing removals and works associated with the metro tunnel (which opened late last year but is regularly closed for “maintenance”) not to mention regular bustituition for ‘rail improvement works’, the road people have delivered the Westgate tunnel with its massive freeway widening at the west end and a spaghetti junction of flyovers at the North Melbourne. Now they’re getting on with the Northeast link between the northern ring road, Eastern Freeway and Eastlink with its own massive system of tunnels and overpasses. At least they’re upgrading the Eastern Freeway busway as part of it.

 

And in common with Sydney, a road project in Melbourne may be somewhat controversial and run late and over budget but once it’s open, it’s open and will rarely if ever completely close for maintenance. The worst you normally get are 40km/h work zones in the middle of the night. Compare that with rail and tram projects which are no sooner opened then they reclose for the obligatory and ever present maintenance.

 

It makes you wonder how they ever managed to convert the systems from steam to electric back in the day!

 

Stuart 

On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 at 10:20, 'TP' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

In Sydney, that Koornang Rd situation would see parking removed and transferred to side streets. Also a more direct route extending Glenhuntly Rd via Graceburn Ave and some property resumptions. 

 

Tony P

(from a city that doesn't usually tippy-toe around)

 

On Saturday, 6 June 2026 at 09:57:09 UTC+10 Richard Youl wrote:

If the policy is in fact to build no new unsegregated street tramlines in Melbourne, how could you build the suggested tram line from the Carnegie tram terminus which is just metres back on the left to Carnegie rail station? 

 

Actually I think the matter of segregation was mentioned a few years ago in these pages when someone suggested the 96 should turn right at the end of Acland St and follow the old VR tram to the south.  Someone then mentioned the ban on new mixed running. 

 

Google provided this: “Future developments focus on segregating the tracks for faster, more reliable, and accessible journeys rather than building traditional shared-road tracks.”

 

Richard

 

 

 

On 6 Jun 2026, at 9:13 am, 'TP' via TramsDownUnder <tramsdo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 



Melbourne has a policy of not building any new street tramways? If true, I can see that there are more differences between Melbourne and Sydney thinking than the pronunciation of "reservoir"!  If any city has streets too narrow for tram separation it's Sydney, yet we got, at least on two lines, new, separated street tramways. The reason seems to me that NSW is willing to prioritise public transport over cars, but Victoria is still back in the motoring age - politically sensitive to how motorists might be upset. Experience around the world is that, if public transport takes road space away from motorists, rather than rising up in angry revolt, motorists typically just accept it and adopt alternatives - another route, or even change to public transport. Traffic congestion and shortage of parking are the greatest incentives to changing to public transport.

 

Tony P. 

 

On Friday, 5 June 2026 at 21:37:13 UTC+10 Malcolm Miles wrote:

 

Linking the 72 to the 48 would seem a no-brainer. It would allow those of us who live in North Balwyn easy access to Camberwell station and the shopping centre.

 

Best wishes,

Malcolm

 

--

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/12585959-9075-42b8-83ee-5cbf120ac390n%40googlegroups.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/621b77ab-2b81-40bb-a5a4-e97605a12b42n%40googlegroups.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/CAHXJhpCAS46qFn2q-h5UJJiNgaRvydVR3nrJREn1S257vX0%3DLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[TP]

" AFAIK, there has not been one project anywhere in Oz that has involved rail, road, or both as a combined venture, that has ever been completed on time and on budget."

Stage 1 (North-west) of Sydney Metro M1 was completed on time and $1 billion under budget. Stage 2 and 3 ran into all the issues created by covid, plus union bans in the lead up to the 2023 State election ("the Year of the Strike""  they called it) and a bit of good old TfNSW incompetence. Nevertheless, both this and Metro Western Sydney Airport remained on budget until after the 2023 election when the new government slacked off. The Sydney light rail suffered from TfNSW not really knowing what it was doing, then covid-related issues. The motorways were built by private companies and not funded by taxpayers. The tolls have the effect of discouraging people from using them them for daily commuting and catching public transport instead, but the current government is using taxpayer money to subsidise the tolls, thus undermining public transport. I agree that it's all a costly circus.

Tony P

[Alan Cooper]

Quoting Mal:

The city congestion problem is well recognised - in both Swanston St and Elizabeth St.  One likely change to help with Elizabeth St is to through route 57 with one of the southern destinations.  That would make Elizabeth St better without adding an extra route to Swanston St.

Is there any sign of progress on this?  The trackwork was finished months ago but I have not seen / heard anything about it ever being used.  At the very least, I would have thought that Yarra Trams / the State Govt would have started softening up the punters with some PR spin - 'reducing congestion' by transferring a service from Elizabeth St (where there are three routes) to Swanston St (where there are eight routes) is somewhat counter-intuitive and it might need some effort to get the idea across.  Or maybe nothing controversial until after the state election.

One Swanston St solution that has been proposed and even promised with a construction date was to link the Park St track serving route 58 with Clarendon St which would enable a southern route to be moved from Swanston St to Spencer St ... with the side benefit of providing a service along the full length of Spencer St as far as LaTrobe St.  That did not happen and again I don't know why, but my guess is that the Govt found that few of the southern route passengers wanted to be taken to the western end of the CBD rather than the centre.

I doubt that the opinion of the passengers was ever sought (I never came across anything about it), let alone heeded.  My guess is that it was abandoned because the Victorian Govt is flat broke.  A whole raft of things (community hospital construction, etc.) were abandoned / 'reviewed' (i.e., abandoned, but with the official announcement postponed until after the election) on the same day.

[Mal Rowe]

Oops!

I went back and checked the original email about Park St and it turns out that the only 'public announcement" was by me!

I was quoting a person who was in contact with the Yarra Trams 'rumour mill' and it seems that a rumour was all it was.

Mal Rowe - checking sources

On 07/06/2026 09:58, Alan Cooper wrote:

Quoting Mal:

One Swanston St solution that has been proposed and even promised with a construction date was to link the Park St track serving route 58 with Clarendon St which would enable a southern route to be moved from Swanston St to Spencer St ... with the side benefit of providing a service along the full length of Spencer St as far as LaTrobe St.  That did not happen and again I don't know why, but my guess is that the Govt found that few of the southern route passengers wanted to be taken to the western end of the CBD rather than the centre.

gle.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/9f4be3c2-2216-425f-9c58-510131cebdden%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Youl]

With the recent Victoria/ElizabethSt trackwork, the easiest fix is 57/67 interworking which would give GH low floor trams.

Richard

On 7 Jun 2026, at 9:58 am, Alan Cooper <alanjc...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/9f4be3c2-2216-425f-9c58-510131cebdden%40googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Highriser]

One Swanston St solution that has been proposed and even promised with a construction date was to link the Park St track serving route 58 with Clarendon St which would enable a southern route to be moved from Swanston St to Spencer St ... with the side benefit of providing a service along the full length of Spencer St as far as LaTrobe St.  That did not happen and again I don't know why, but my guess is that the Govt found that few of the southern route passengers wanted to be taken to the western end of the CBD rather than the centre.

The Park Street fill-in track was sadly cancelled very early in the Metro Tunnel project. It would have been very useful for me, and it has been officially talked about for over twenty years.The track wasn't for the 58 to use, but possibly route 5 through routing via Park and Clarendon Street to Docklands. I think there would be the numbers there for this service as described, but it will cost money. In the eighth richest country in the world, I don't think Victoria is broke.    

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/9f4be3c2-2216-425f-9c58-510131cebdden%40googlegroups.com.

[Mal Rowe]

On 07/06/2026 11:47, 'Richard Youl' via TramsDownUnder wrote:
> With the recent Victoria/ElizabethSt trackwork, the easiest fix is
> 57/67 interworking which would give GH low floor trams.
>

That would break a long standing tradition of Glenhuntly (Glen Huntly?)
having the 'leftover' trams!

Mal Rowe - whose  tongue is firmly in his cheek