Fair enough bomber. I'll (slightly) modify my argument to:
The No. 96 tram is much better than the old St Kilda train line because:
* It runs more frequently (with shorter wait times for passengers) and
* Has stops all through the city (not just at a single place) and
* because it's longer at both ends and stops near popular destinations that did not exist when the rail line was built in 1857. This allows potential passengers to plan a trip to places like Luna Park, The Espy and Jeff's Shed that would not be possible without a very long walk if the train line still existed.
And to counter all your points:
* It's now effing slow to get out of the city and constantly overcrowded. It might be more frequent, but it's certainly not frequent enough when passengers are packed in like sardines between Swanston St and the Casino. So all up between the lack of frequency of the trains, and the slowness of the trams, I don't think anyone is getting anywhere any quicker.
* Those stops throughout the city were still there before, it's just that people had to change vehicles. You know, just like they have to do now if they're at Flinders St, or Melbourne Central, and want to go to St Kilda. Just because the route now runs up Bourke St doesn't mean that it's instantly accessible to everyone. Should we replace the Frankston Line with a light rail and run it up Bourke St too?
* Those "longer at both ends" destinations existed before the light rail was put in. Don't believe me? Go have a look at Melway Edition 1: St Kilda
and Clarendon St
. All people had to do was change vehicles. JUST LIKE THEY HAVE TO DO TO GO ANYWHERE THAT ISN'T ON THE SAME LINE. I'm sorry, your argument is just really, really stupid. They could always have got to Luna Park, or Jeff's Shed or The Espy because those tram lines had been there for decades prior to the light rail.