Probably a lack of flexibility. Railway is the king of inter-city cargo, but the limited capacity and fixed routes and schedules make trams less efficient in populated areas.
I can speculate myself 😅 But I was interested in the actual reason, as delivering packages to specific postal lockers would work very well if those lockers are placed near the tram stations, which they often are.
If you had read the article it would be clear that both of these were the result of bureocratic red tape, but I guess that is too much to ask from some people here 🙄
Probably a lack of flexibility. Railway is the king of inter-city cargo, but the limited capacity and fixed routes and schedules make trams less efficient in populated areas.
I can speculate myself 😅 But I was interested in the actual reason, as delivering packages to specific postal lockers would work very well if those lockers are placed near the tram stations, which they often are.
From a brief googling on DDG: https://www.railwaygazette.com/light-rail-and-tram/parcels-by-tram-project-ends/66165.article
It was a trial run, and there wasn’t enough demand. The trams also weren’t permitted to carry passengers.
“Googling on DDG” heh
They took our data, we’ll take their trademark.
Thanks. Seems like bureocratic red tape killed the idea then… not surprised.
“there was lack of demand, and it couldn’t also take passengers”
But hey, keep on reinterpreting words to support your preconceptions.
I think they’re saying not allowing it to carry passengers was bureaucratic red tape. What’s the reason for that?
If you had read the article it would be clear that both of these were the result of bureocratic red tape, but I guess that is too much to ask from some people here 🙄