Randwick goes nowhere in the sense the line finishes.
Its like Circular Key. So that part of the track is inefficient because it only goes in one direction. The track does not go beyond Randwick nor does it go beyond Circular key, it does not wrap around to another area in need. The other trouble with Circular Key is a train station is there.
It gets back to the argument that effectiveness of trams really should be designed in loops or rectangles for effectiveness.
I was looking at the comments on a Sydney Morning article.
One thing I find interesting was someone from Melbourne where he said people do not take a tram for long distance travel, they hop on and off to suit where they are going, a few blocks here, a few blocks there.
I saw the size and length of the trams which appear far longer. This should make the tram slower and less effective as more people slow times to get away and the length of the tram may reduce its ability to turn corners on shorter intertwined tracks which suit tram passengers.
I seen comments about accessing heavy rail experts from England. It looks like the whole track is designed like a train rather than a tram and therefore is not effective as a tram network.
I saw in the tram/rail map another track that must be proposed through Balmain and so forth. That would appear to make more sense.
The track from Central to Circular Key seems to make no sense as its in direction competition with quicker underground train network.
For the tram network to be effective it needs to be useful. I seen some tram where two where locked together. It looks to me in time especially off-peak, trams need to be smaller in length with more bolt-on characteristics to improve flexibility and add capacity if necessary with variable volumes of demand throughout the day and night.
I don't mind the concept but it looks like it was not built for purpose like IT experts creating something users do not want. Apart from the length of trams and flexibility within the system what is key is the track and design of the track network. It really is to get people off foot moving them 4 blocks here, 5 blocks there so its more suited to high density living. Big cumbersome tracks are not suitable. Ideally people need to get off and on the trams easily without closed doors or sections within the tram without closed doors to improve user convenience otherwise why use them and they become a white elephant. Trams occurred prior to public liability, and look at commutes in India where people sit on the roofs of trains. Not suggesting that but how they look at safety needs to be reassessed and regulated with private operators to improve efficiency and performance
