With that said, why is Plymouth not investing in trams? Olsztyn is a city about half the size of Plymouth (167,000 vs. 300,00 citizens) and they have not one, not two, but FIVE tram lines.

What precludes Plymouth from (re)building a tram network of it's own?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_i...

(5/8)

Trams are much better than buses at moving masses of people, especially modern electric, articulated trams powered by overhead cables. That much is a fact.

They have fewer failure points, they need less energy to get moving due to lower friction, and have higher vehicle capacities.
(4/8)

Apparently the tram network was a victim of the Blitz, which was an extensive bombing campaign conducted by Hitler's Germany to destroy the UK's infrastructure and factories, and cripple the British war effort.

However, 80 years have passed, and surely now is a great time to revive it?
(3/8)

From the Wikipedia page, here is the map of the network up before the network shut down in 1945. Seems decently sized to me.

(2/8)

That is before mentioning stuff like lubrication, emissions compliance, tyre replacement, MOTs, so on and so forth.

An articulated tram powered by 750v OLE has to worry about NONE of this, and generally uses less energy to carry more people.

(6/8)

Here's the thing. Trams often run on steel wheels on steel rails, are powered by OLE electricity, and are modular in design.

Compare that to buses, which are unitary, and use diesel engines to power the vehicle via rubber tyres on concrete/asphalt, which is much less energy efficient.

(5/8)

Guess that's the end of thread.

I gave my two cents on the matter, please feel free to chime in with your own.

So why is it that Plymouth has had 80 years, and has not rebuilt it's tram network? I see nothing but benefits to (re)building the historical tram network, especially to modern standards, with level boarding and all.

And besides, trams run on steel wheels on steel rails. That is a very low friction way to get a vehicle moving - especially compared to rubber tyres.

Couple this to an OLE-powered electric motor, and you get a much more efficient system for moving masses of people than even a double-decker bus.

The way I understand it, a bus might be cheaper to operate in the short run, but you have to fuel it, replace the tyres, oil, fluids n what have you.

A tram doesn't have anywhere near as many parts to maintain.
OK, maybe the joints need maintenance in an articulated machine, but that's different.

And look, I understand that goods and materials were rather scarce in the UK for a long time. Goods rationing didn't end until 1953, if memory serves me correctly.

However, a fully electric tram network (like the one shown here) is great at moving masses of people for not much energy, AFAIK.

Well, this tram network here for my city shuttered in 1945, apparently a casualty of the German bombing raids of the Second World War.

Why was it that they just paved over or ripped up the tram network than rebuilding it up to scratch? This seems super short sighted from my perspective.

Why do I bring this up?

Well, you might not know this about me, but I am actually a very staunch public transport advocate. Let's just say NJB had a very significant hand in shifting my opinion in support.

That and I just generally happen to be someone with historical inclinations.

The tram network also seems to have been pretty extensive for the time, at least that's the impression I am under. Here is the map of it from the Wikipedia page:

No stream tonight. Will be out and about tomorrow, but I'll try to get something going. Think I'll spend tonight tinkering with the OBS trying to figure stuff out. Gonna stream from Twitch going forwards.