[quote="ZH836301"] [quote="I"] Sure it costs more to transport more weight. It costs more to run twice as many services too. [/quote]
Why would you be running twice as many services - logic gap?[/quote]
Well you are going to be running services at current with more single deck trains. We wouldn't be in this kerfuffle in the first place, but in the end you will be paying more for more trains, or bigger trains. (I have more a schpiel below too)
[quote="ZH836301"][quote="I"]The issue at current, is Melbourne is running out of capacity on the network. There are two ways of solving a capacity issue from where we are today:
Run more single deck services OR Run services with dual-decks.
Either way paves relief (be it temporary) for pax.[/quote]
Wrong - double deck stock reduces the maximum capacity of a line. [/quote]
I must say, you are quick to responde, but I would like some justification.
I want to bring back my "Train Capacity Index" I referred to previously. (Single deck has "1" and a Dual Deck has "1.35")
If I run 8 single deck trains in an hour.... I will have that much capacity available. 8 x 1
If I run 8 dual-deck trains in an hour... I will have 8 x 1.35
I believe the latter is a larger number.
[quote="ZH836301"] [quote="I"] Dual-deck trains will obviously cater for more passengers, meaning you really in the end have LESS dwell time at a station.[/quote]
Firstly I want to address the fact at a grassroots level. Door crowding, occurs because trains are becoming fuller and fuller, meaning people inevitably crowd train doorways. Now, when you run more trains/bigger trains, you have more space. Meaning, that door crowding doesn't occur, and "dwell" time is significantly reduced.
Please also refer to the amount of people that can be loaded via a single door, and DO NOT confuse this with peak times and people crowding doorways. (Refer to X'Trap vs Siemens door debacle)
There will be a cost anyway in 'unloading times.' There will either be the issue of having to fit more trains into four tunnels frequently. Or fitting in trains at likely a lessor frequency. The capacity per hour remains the same. It's almost like a constant: [/quote]
No it doesn't - double deck stock does not carry 35% more passengers [/quote]
From what i've figured out, 35% is a reasonable assumption. Based on new technologies, and different rollingstock, it's possible to have 35% capacity more than a Siemens train.
Unfortunately because of limited data, and we can't really gather pure assumptions based on past experimental rollingstock. I'd be happy to create a mock-up based on the information I can get, but the timeframe i'd have to do it in is quite unreasonable.
Also; people. THE 4D IS GONE. Stop referring to it. You can't make precise assumptions based on a redundant piece of hardware. New technology is out there. Different examples can also be used.
Why ignore a piece of hardware designed for our network in favour of examples that probably don't even fit it? [/quote]
It wasn't designed for our network, is was a modification of an existing design to suit Melbourne's designs. It was by no means purely designed for Melbourne. (Then again, the next closest trains would have been the Comeng or Hitachi (or any train before then). I agree sure, it is a working example. Times change, and I will be looking again into the capacity of our trains.
What we need to look at is the *total cost: electricity, maintenance, staff, depreciation.[/quote]
Electricity - double deck uses more per capita
Maintenance - likely more double deck per capita (larger motors, heavier design, more windows etc. per capita)
Staff - slightly more for single deck stock per capita (in line with slight passenger capacity increase for DD stock) [/quote]
Regardless, I would not consider this an issue. We are talking about providing a service to passenger in Melbourne who face issues of crowding. If you have to take into account costs, well whether we decide to use Double Deck trains, or a larger single-deck fleet, it will cost us more. But the benefits are so much greater.
A double deck would use more electricity, but not per capita. Sure a double deck train uses more electricity, (it obviously has to) in comparison to a single-deck train. But when you take into account that it will be carrying more people, it technically is still efficient in carrying it's load. I draw parallels which almost replicate a large scale version of our application. Compare the B777 vs the A380. Single deck aircraft, and a double-deck aircraft. The A380 will use more, but the energy per-person is at par with the B777, considering also that the A380 is newer technology, it is quite often less. More than anything, the savings should be to the environment, remember a train takes something like at least 400+ cars off the road.
Staff, again is a non-issue. We will end up with more pax either way. That is our aim.
I want to stress again, door capacity, and loading time are not directly related. Remember, when you have an empty train and you try loading people into it, it's much faster than a train that's already full - and this is our entire aim, to make trains emptier! when they arrive at your station. (Funny how that sounds... but it's true.)
I also find a more important issue growing. We are still thinking in the current term. We need to think beyond long term, and go for growth. This is the mistake done already by our current Government. Creating orders in 2006 purely for 2006. It's not an order for the future. We shouldn't make this mistake. We can make a better investment in the long term by securing our capacity. But I also stress, from what i've mentioned in my last post - an integrated approach is a must. My issue with single-deck trains is, after perhaps 10 years, you will eventually have to run more trains, and then more, and more etc. And then what? At this point in time there are the double-deck trains. The biggest investment though must go to new tracks and lines.