A great crowd, but they were never going to come close to filling Wembley. No idea why they changed the London game from Tottenham Stadium (63k) to Wembley (90k). It would have looked great packed to the rafters instead of 30k empty seats.
Although the old (1923) Wembley stadium is a different venue from the current Wembley, it's the nostalgia associated with the name that's the major selling point behind holding the Ashes opener there. The nostalgia of RL fans - both Poms and the Aussies who stayed up in the early hours of the morning watching it on tv - remembering the iconic Ashes and World Cup matches played at the old Wembley stadium during the 1990s. This maybe the only test at Wembley that the 34 players who took the field from both teams yesterday ever get to play there.
Also, although Tottenham and Emirates stadiums may've looked better on tv, after 22 years of the RL Ashes concept shafted into the wilderness, this was the one opportunity to test the waters if there was ever a chance to play at Wembley. Yes, the crowd could've been more, but I'm definitely not complaining that nearly 61k turning out. Back in the 2000s decade, that would've been completely unheard of, as the profile of test match RL was still struggling after the immense damage the Super League war caused (e.g. the first Australia vs Great Britain test post-SL war only drew 12k at Suncorp Stadium in 1999). It has taken YEARS to reverse the damage and get the game to the stage it is now where more tests can be scheduled at larger venues. In the aftermath of the huge criticism the 2000 RLWC copped in the media, the RFL had to take the conservative option and play the 2001 & 2003 Ashes at 25k seat venues. Gradually over time since then, as test RL tournaments became more profitable (e.g. tri/four-nations tournament), test matches at larger venues such as Elland Road, Wembley Stadium, Old Trafford, Anfield etc. came into play.