Double deckers

You must be logged in to reply

  Search thread   Image gallery
« 1 2 3 4 of 5 5 »
Natronomonas Chief Train Controller



I am sick to death of people complaining about the price of a daily ticket and the fact they get cramped from standing 'all the way' from Camberwell to Richmond on an express which is from Camberwell to Richmond.

- Heihachi_73

I think you'll find that most people don't mind standing from Camberwell or closer to the CBD. The problem for those people is often getting on in the first place!!

The system is really getting to breaking point on trying to offer the same configuration and service to all parts of Melbourne. Many other suburban systems are tiered (ie inner service, metro seating) and outer suburban (more seating, sometimes double-deck) as well as often running on separated tracks (and different loading gauges).

In this scenario pax at Camberwell or other broadly similar distances (

 
SteamtoStay Chief Commissioner

Location: Building floorplates

@ X'Trapolis pic - is that 24 seats per carriage? Think I'll start bussing it now if that is the future. It would be more comfortable sitting on the end of a Long Island freight car all the way from Frankston. Save some money and bring out some of the disused box vans, or stick some BG bogies under the disused Newport Wobbly trams and join them together between the 'Crappers. Laughing

- Heihachi_73



Depends - Methinks if people lost weight we could fit 36 seated. Also, I forgot to mark the lift-able seats at each end of the carriage - you'd seat another 6-10 at each end. That's a total of maybe 160 seats per 3-car set, about half of what there is now. But at the same time, I've tripled standing room and cut a third off dwell time. A 6-car train of this type would be designed to hold 1000 people in regular circumstances, maybe 1200 as a crush-laod.

 
Natronomonas Chief Train Controller

Problem is the lift-able seats would always be down, would they not? I've never seen a crowded tram where the liftable seats are up in order to allow a greater standing population... people always sit.

That being the case, you should probably leave those seats out, or make them permanent...

 
SteamtoStay Chief Commissioner

Location: Building floorplates

Problem is the lift-able seats would always be down, would they not? I've never seen a crowded tram where the liftable seats are up in order to allow a greater standing population... people always sit.

That being the case, you should probably leave those seats out, or make them permanent...

- Natronomonas

Do people sit on them on New Years Eve?

Also, what's the cost difference between a bank of liftable seats, and a solid bench?

 
The Met Chief Commissioner

Location: 37.55-S /145.01-E

 

 Sure it costs more to transport more weight. It costs more to run twice as many services too.  
- I

Why would you be running twice as many services - logic gap?

- ZH836301

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)

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.

- I

Wrong - double deck stock reduces the maximum capacity of a line.

- ZH836301

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.

 

Dual-deck trains will obviously cater for more passengers, meaning you really in the end have LESS dwell time at a station.
- I

Come again?

- ZH836301

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:
- I

No it doesn't - double deck stock does not carry 35% more passengers  

- ZH836301

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.

What?

Why ignore a piece of hardware designed for our network in favour of examples that probably don't even fit it?  

- I

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.
- rick57

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)

- ZH836301

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.

Sincere Regards,

The Met  Smile

- ZH836301
 
ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity

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)

- The Met



Where do you get 'twice as many services' from - thin air?

That would make sense if double deck stock carried double the passengers - but they don't

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.

- The Met



No need to create jargonistic indexes to conceal basic fact.

Besides, if you bothered to look back through the thread, you'll see your indexation of a double deck, based on a Siemens at 1, would be closer to 1.16 (1992 on 1720) - incredibly miniscule.  Your simplistic analysis also ignores the lower per service cost of operating single deck stock, which means you can operate more single deck services for an equivalent outlay.

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.

- The Met



See above response.

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.

- The Met



Source or it's just BS.

"New technologies" - what, physics defying rollingstock with an extra dimension?

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.

- The Met



I don't know how many times it has to be said, but the 4D was not a Tangara.

In what way was it not designed for Melbourne?  

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.

- The Met



How so?

Carries just 16% more passengers, yet weighs about 40% more than a Siemens of equivalent length.

Have you actually been reading this thread?

 
The Met Chief Commissioner

Location: 37.55-S /145.01-E

Yes I have been reading this thread, but you cling so closely to your defunct 4D.

But surely enough, the 4D has come in handy. Using more maths (I hear sigh's from the crowd) - the 4D carries more people, than the average single-deck Melbourne train. In order not to skew the calculations, which I note, you did not take into account, how the Siemens train is a longer train per carriage, it is not justified, because of the designing of the 4D.

I don't know how many times it has to be said, but the 4D was not a Tangara.

- ZH836301


ORLY.

"New technologies" - what, physics defying rollingstock with an extra dimension?

- ZH836301



Wouldn't that be nice, though I wouldn't be here if so. But if you wanted evidence using your defunct stock the 4D, it isn't really all that physics defying.

Source or it's just BS.

...No need to create jargonistic indexes to conceal basic fact.

- ZH836301

[/quote]

Well, that's the issue, i have been on about. You can't in this day an age, if your comparing it to a currently non-existant rail car, limited to the designs and efficiencies of the past. "Quite living in the past."

Since you insist, I am using your defunct 4D example, and the results speak for themselves. But the Siemens example is not a good one, as it is obvious the use of space is inefficient as to which is why it has more seats...

Well firstly, I define the average Melbourne single-deck railcar as:

71.6 metres long, and capable of carrying 275 passengers for a 3-car set.

(The average length was calculated from the train lengths (Siemens, X'Trapolis and Comeng). The capacity was calculated from three trains with two of the trains in different configs (total of four) (Siemens, X'Trapolis, EDI-Comeng, and Alstom-Comeng). This is SEATED capacity.

My "Train Capacity Index" - has been refined. We get right down to the nitty-gritty. My results are as follows:

- 275 passengers, carried on a average train length of 71.6m yields 3.84 passengers per metre.

- 346 passengers in the 4D carried in a typical config where the total train length is 78.4 metres yields 4.41 passengers per metre.

So capacity of the length of typical configuration: Single-decks (TCI = 3.84), 4D (TCI = 4.41)

Now, to add further evidence, I also used purely "T" Cars. (On the 4D the 'T' car was actually a powered car, hence it was called a 'M' car.)

Again, I averaged the capacity of our single-deck fleet, and the lengths (92 passengers (you can't carry 92.25!) over an average length of 23.64). The 4D carrying 97 passengers in 19.6 (Since no data was available the total 4-car length was divided into four providing induvidual car lengths). Now already you can see that our single-deck fleets carry less passenger, even though they are longer. But in line with the above calculations:

- 92 passengers, carried on a average 'T-car' length of 23.64 yields 3.89 passengers per metre.

- 97 passengers in the 4D 'T-car (technically 'M') where length is 19.6 metres yields 4.95 passengers per metre.

So capacity of a typical "T-Car": Single-decks (TCI = 3.89), 4D (TCI = 4.95). In increase of nearly 30%. Which basically concludes that the 4D is more efficient in carrying more people in the same space.

The next issue is, true capacity, which again, I'm not going to dedicate my time just to prove someone wrong, I do to prove superficial evidence, and short-sightedness wrong.

Something that was highlighted earlier, was an X'Trapolis with a longitudinal seating layout (Rapid Metro layouts) - which have almost a high enough capacity to carry loads and loads of people. And certainly, by all means this will increase capacity. Door loading times would be reduced. But these trains will start getting full again. Double deck is a longer term option for the future, and to expand capacity to exterior suburbs without the necessity of creating high-frequency services where they are unnecessary, but this is not to say you cannot have a fast and frequent reliable service.

 
rick57 Station Master

Heihachi_73

> I am sick to death of people complaining about the price of a daily ticket and the fact they get cramped from standing 'all the way' from Camberwell to Richmond on an express which is from Camberwell to Richmond.

People in inner zones could easily be peeved that when (was it Zone 3 prices were dropped to Zone 2 prices), a big discount was handed to some, while the rest got zilch.

This was compounded by the resulting effect of more people in outer zones catching trains, so sometimes people in inner zones sometime have trouble getting on.

So those in inner zones now pay relatively more, and get the worst of the more crowded service.

 
rick57 Station Master

The Met

> 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.

I agree 100%

> From what i've figured out, 35% is a reasonable assumption. Based on new technologies, and different rolling stock, 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 rolling stock. 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.

Please, take your time, I think it could be very useful.

Can I ask what is your source?

Cheers

 
rick57 Station Master

The Met has given his basis

ZH836301, what is yours?

Cheers

 
ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity

But surely enough, the 4D has come in handy. Using more maths (I hear sigh's from the crowd) - the 4D carries more people, than the average single-deck Melbourne train. In order not to skew the calculations, which I note, you did not take into account, how the Siemens train is a longer train per carriage, it is not justified, because of the designing of the 4D.

- The Met



Point?

A two-unit 4D would be 13 metres longers than a Siemens - hence why extrapolations are required to make a fair comparison.

Ie. Comparing double deck with single deck loadings, not that of a long train against a short one

Well, that's the issue, i have been on about. You can't in this day an age, if your comparing it to a currently non-existant rail car, limited to the designs and efficiencies of the past. "Quite living in the past."

- The Met



Are you actually going to bother to elaborate on this.

How could a newer double deck train magically carry more than the 4D?

Since you insist, I am using your defunct 4D example, and the results speak for themselves. But the Siemens example is not a good one, as it is obvious the use of space is inefficient as to which is why it has more seats...

- The Met



Try reading the thread - start with 09 Jul 2008 17:19

All rollingstock crush figures give a similar seated:standing passenger ratio of around 65% - don't know where you think the 'inefficiency' exists

So capacity of the length of typical configuration: Single-decks (TCI = 3.84), 4D (TCI = 4.41)

- The Met



Calculating 4.41 / 3.84 gives 1.15, which is even lower than the crush figure I suggested of 1.16

The other comparison is pointless, since it is neither factual or realistic.

Regardless, weighted by seating, the crush of a Siemens T is 288, and that of a 4D 279.

Dividing by length, gives 12.1 against 14.2 or 1:1.17 - again similar to the 1.16 I calculated

But these trains will start getting full again. Double deck is a longer term option for the future

- The Met



Single deck stock operating on a line gives it a higher maximum capacity than that of double deck stock.

 
The Met Chief Commissioner

Location: 37.55-S /145.01-E

How could a newer double deck train magically carry more than the 4D?

- ZH836301

Im fond of this question. Why. Well OK. Technology is developing. I have a strong basis of rejecting the 4D. It was a demonstrator, in essence a trial. Did it work? Yes, for a while. Did it provide valid statistics, and reasonable assumptions? A weak yes. Is this an ideal example of a double-decker vehicle situation in Victoria. NO!

Why? Because, I stress new technology is out there. Look at our tram network, how we've created trams at a low-floor level, and the innovation of articulation. I have been specifically researching current tram design concepts, and how it effects on the people who use it. Capacity is going to be a major issue.

Now specifically speaking, working off the 4D, if you increased the upper deck by a mere metre, modify the carbody designs, you can fit an extra 12 people onto the train. This again, is why I want to draw away from the 4D. A EMU dd train, for Melbourne can exist as a 3-car. This will mean that capacity isn't lost in a third point of articulation. This could account for at least 12 people. And when you create a 3-car set, it's carriage lengths will be far longer than the 4D.

The "T-car" analysis was definately a scope for dd trains. It was evidence that even with a shorter carriage, it carried more people. With a full length-carriage, your boosting capacity by a great amount.

Now, we've both had issue trying to find what exactly a double-decker can really carry.

A two-unit 4D would be 13 metres longers than a Siemens - hence why extrapolations are required to make a fair comparison.

- ZH836301

Quite true, why I avoided trying to use a 3-set direct comparison the the 4-set 4D. The issue is we're only working off what we can in the past, which is the 4D. Hence that is why I cannot exactly elaborate on any new idea, it just doesn't exist.

The other comparison is pointless, since it is neither factual or realistic.

- ZH836301

I used that specifically, because I found that to compare the sets with the cab, would yes clearly show that single-deck cars perhaps would have the advantage. On the whole, I divided it by it's length to avoid complications as such. It is factual, but without the true analysis, it still provides a clear scope to to what extent, and there's no denying (obviously) that the 4D in this case carried more.

Single deck stock operating on a line gives it a higher maximum capacity than that of double deck stock.

- ZH836301

I will disagree, whether I am right or you are right - so be it.

Find the busiest line in Sydney. (Assume double-decker operations). It is at capacity. You cannot place more trains onto the line. Note that you have the same infrastructure (signalling capabilities, and track capabilities) Are you going to to have higher capacity by running smaller trains?

(I think you can predict, that I will ask a question to your response!)

How about Hong Kong, and it's double-deck trams. Would there be more capacity running single-deck versions of the tram?

Also, define "line." Note that more of our lines our 2 tracks, but another bulk of it is three track either to a certain point in the line, or as passing loops.

And, another variable, is where we should really be calculating floor-space.

Regardless, weighted by seating, the crush of a Siemens T is 288, and that of a 4D 279.

and earlier said

A two-unit 4D would be 13 metres longers than a Siemens - hence why extrapolations are required to make a fair comparison.

- ZH836301

It's difficult to make that assumption. Again, I used the 'average' Melbourne train: which was 275. Again, the 4D comparison cannot be made accurately.

----

Thanks rick57 for bringing up my older post. Which I stand by (and I think anyone will), if DD's were utilised in Melbourne, it must be via a integrated approach, and the only benefit to pax will be from more lines and infrastructure upgrades. Unfortunately, in the time that I do have, I can't exactly go terribly far in-depth.

Exterior reading: http://www.eastcorridor.com/announcements/RTDBoardRetreat_CommuterRailVehicleTechAnalysis.pdf

May be of some interest, the analysis of DMU dd, EMU and DMU's.

 
ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity

Now specifically speaking, working off the 4D, if you increased the upper deck by a mere metre,  This again, is why I want to draw away from the 4D. A EMU dd train, for Melbourne can exist as a 3-car. This will mean that capacity isn't lost in a third point of articulation. This could account for at least 12 people. And when you create a 3-car set, it's carriage lengths will be far longer than the 4D.

- The Met



A mere metre?  Ahum, a posted by wongm:

Surely you're joking.

The two main reasons for the 4D being four cars, not three:

*It weighs significantly more, meaning long cars would place too much stress on an underbody, and

*The expanded area in the top section would cause fouling outside the loading window on corners

A single deck train of equivalent length to the 4D would most likely require seven cars for these reasons, but this was taken into account in my calculations.

Find the busiest line in Sydney. (Assume double-decker operations). It is at capacity. You cannot place more trains onto the line. Note that you have the same infrastructure (signalling capabilities, and track capabilities) Are you going to to have higher capacity by running smaller trains?

- The Met



The highest capacity operations in the world do not use double deck stock - enough said.

 
The Met Chief Commissioner

Location: 37.55-S /145.01-E

Now specifically speaking, working off the 4D, if you increased the upper deck by a mere metre, This again, is why I want to draw away from the 4D.

- I

A mere metre?

- ZH836301

Don't fail to recognise, that I am talking about within the 4D as a concept. Purely by inspecting it's configuration. It has nothing to do with loading gauge. I meant a mere metre. Increasing the length of the top deck (inside the train, and structural shell), by a metre, and additionally changing the internal configuration.

If you make comparison to single-deck car body's weight today to older car body's of the past, you will find that they are significantly lighter.

It weighs significantly more, meaning long cars would place too much stress on an underbody

- ZH836301



The weight addition is negligible, and would not stress the underbody. Larger and/or longer double-deck trains operate around the world, and have even been operated with heavier diesel equipment. This is simply not an issue.

Find the busiest line in Sydney. (Assume double-decker operations). It is at capacity. You cannot place more trains onto the line. Note that you have the same infrastructure (signalling capabilities, and track capabilities) Are you going to to have higher capacity by running smaller trains?

- I

The highest capacity operations in the world do not use double deck stock - enough said.

- ZH836301

Apart from drawing attention that there was a failure to support your original argument, I rest my case.

Not to mention the fact, the other example was completely ignored. The simple fact that was noted was, 'highest capacity operations.' Well, Parallels can be drawn to our Sydney counterparts, and operation which is different, but does resemble our network. They have a 'spoke to hub,' much like our own. Where lines end up converging to a singular point, Central and Flinders Street. (But at vastly different scales and context).

Most 'highest capacity operations' occur with 'spoke to spoke.' Where there really is no hub, but numerous interconnecting lines, where often there are multiple ways to get to one location via a single network. We do not have that luxury, and it is quickly becoming apparent.

Melbourne differs vastly. All trains lead to the city! You won't find that in your 'high capacity operations' - or a majority of them anyway. There are flaws, minor imperfections, by no means a severe impedance - but I find the verdict is slightly clearer, but by no means crystal.

I find that we have exhausted discussion (I personally have for today, but there's always tomorrow). But I will continue, not to force opposition, but to make sure we try to have both sides represented.

 
TheLoadedDog The Ghost of George Stephenson

Where's Riccardo?

DD was wrong for Sydney and it's wrong for Melbourne. The extra capacity might buy you a couple of years' grace, like it did in Sydney in the 70s.  Now, what Melbourne needs to do is approach Goninans or somebody and ask for a quote for a huge new tranche of DD stock, which would need to be specially designed for Melburnian conditions.  Armed with that figure, go out and get a quote for some off-the-shelf (ok, BG etc) SD stock.  Then buy a bit more!  I'd wager you'll have money left over for some kickasre track amplifications and the like.

Don't do DD, kids.  DD is baaaad, m'kay?

 
ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity

Don't fail to recognise, that I am talking about within the 4D as a concept. Purely by inspecting it's configuration. It has nothing to do with loading gauge. I meant a mere metre. Increasing the length of the top deck, by a metre, and additionally changing the configuration.

- The Met



The 4D is already longer than single deck stock, why make comparison even more difficult.

It's also questionable as to whether such an extension would meet loading gauge requirements (as explained in my last post)

I see you're still using the 4D. If you make comparison to single-deck car body's today , you will find that they are significantly lighter.

- The Met



Proof?  A single 4D set was 186 tonnes at 78.4m

A CityRail M Set has a mass of 191 tonnes at 81.6m

A CityRail OSCAR Set has a mass of 197 tonnes at 81.6m

Source

The weight addition is negligible, and would not stress the underbody. Larger and/or longer double-deck trains operate around the world, and have even been operated with heavier diesel equipment. This is simply not an issue.

- The Met



It's not the mass that's the problem - it's the distribution of that mass.

If you extend each car, you need to move the bogies further apart, otherwise the car ends will foul not just the loading window, but also each other.  In moving the bogies further apart, you increase the stress placed on the main structural member.  

I'm not saying it's impossible, but costs add up - making it the less practical option

 
rick57 Station Master

Loaded Dog

Agreed we need both more stock and track amplifications, etc

Why do you think DDs will cost so much more?

Cheers

 
Knowitall Banned

Location: Banned

Hows this for an idea, improve the rail network

Run 3 car sets at twice the freq.

one direct one via the loop

Spread out the demand

Over half the problem is when dwell times are increased at stations. more people trying to get onto a train thats late because of increased dwell times and once it starts it baloons

instead double your freq, people are less stressed about waiting 5-7 min for the next train as apossed to 10-15 people are less likely to hold doors for late runners ect (in threory) ect

just a thought

 
The Met Chief Commissioner

Location: 37.55-S /145.01-E

The 4D is already longer than single deck stock, why make comparison even more difficult.

Increasing the length of the top deck (inside the train), by a metre, and additionally changing the internal configuration.

- The Met

- ZH836301

Please note my revised statement. This is internal configuration. Nothing to do with the outer shell. Would be like putting a fun park and a water slide inside the train. Doesn't change the loading gauge.

I see you're still using the 4D. If you make comparison to single-deck car body's today , you will find that they are significantly lighter.

- I



Proof? A single 4D set was 186 tonnes at 78.4m

- ZH836301

Same technology though. I guess the concept has remained as it has. I mean we could go space-age and use 'carbon-fibre.' Lighter weight alloys or composites. Of course - the price needs to be right, it isn't.

In the end the aim is carrying more people.

If you extend each car, you need to move the bogies further apart, otherwise the car ends will foul not just the loading window, but also each other. In moving the bogies further apart, you increase the stress placed on the main structural member.

- ZH836301

This issue has already been factored into my discussion. I stand by saying this is not an issue. Technology exists as it is with loading, and making a dd train longer - as you mentioned obviously you cannot keep the bogies the same distance apart. And how many dimes they cost is always going to be an issue.

...but costs add up - making it the less practical option

- ZH836301

It always is. It shouldn't be; otherwise we'd have more trains Exclamation



Hows this for an idea, improve the rail network...

Run 3 car sets at twice the freq.

- Knowitall



Or 6 car sets.. (if 'twere possible)

 
TheLoadedDog The Ghost of George Stephenson

Why do you think DDs will cost so much more?

- rick57

Because it is the red-headed stepchild of urban rail.

Want to buy a generic SD EMU set?  Sure, no problem.  Any number of overseas manufacturers (in countries with crappy currency) will be happy to oblige.  A few minor tweaks and you're away.

Want large-scale implementation of suburban DD stock?  Hmm..

You'd likely be looking at pricey Australian manufacturers - or overseas ones having to re-tool. Bad enough for Sydney, but this is Melbourne, so you need to factor in a very restrictive loading gauge (and revisiting the 4D's 2x2 lower deck seating problem).  That's going to cost money both in  design and manufacture, and also in reduced passenger loadings as compared to Sydney.

But a bigger problem is that it would provide a short-term ability for the powers that be to say, "Hey, look! We've addressed Melbourne's capacity issues and there are x number of extra seats available into and out of the city each day!  Yippee!"

Except that they actually haven't.  Implementation of a DD fleet in Melbourne will kill funding for sorely needed perway improvements which DD will only postpone by a couple of years anyway.

This is free Sydney experience offered to our southern cousins:  THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED HERE!  We know what we're talking about.  The trains are sardine cans, and on-time running was so bad they needed to bring in a laughable timetable, then it got bad again.  We still have the same sh1tty track we had in the old days - and that is why we're having problems.  Take note of this Melbourne, and don't fall into the same trap.  You need real improvements rather than band aids.

 
rick57 Station Master

Would we be limited to pricey Australian manufacturers?

Whether its single, double or some of both, they make a lot of trains in China, India and Korea, some of them very good.

> a bigger problem is that it would provide a short-term ability for the powers that be to say, "Hey, look! We've addressed Melbourne's capacity issues and there are x number of extra seats available into and out of the city each day! Yippee!"

> Except that they actually haven't. Implementation of a DD fleet in Melbourne will kill funding for sorely needed perway improvements which DD will only postpone by a couple of years anyway.

No one is suggesting that DDs are the be all, just a higher carrying option.
Whatever money is spent will be trumpeted by the Minister; and a good plan should include consider all options, and all of trains, track and other infrastructure.

 
Speed Minister for Railways

It would have been possible to order the existing XTrapolis trains with the double-deck option instead of the single-deck. It isn't difficult to find existing double-deck designs ready to be produced. Of course, double-deck X-traps would have been less convenient for Connex if they couldn't get them to Clifton Hill (with its lengthy single-track stretches limiting service frequency, they could have been good on the rest of the Clifton Hill group during peak hours).

The contention between increasing frequency of services or increasing capacity of trains exists whether you make them longer or higher.

Increasing the length to 7 cars sounds like an easy short term solution (many people think that you could do it next week) but passengers wouldn't notice the difference after a few months of 7 car trains. Introducing double-deck trains won't seem to be so short term but passengers will continue to notice that they have to climb stairs within the train.

 
rick57 Station Master

Speed

Generally I agree with you, though iirc the stairs are only 4 steps.

What are the (recently renamed Dept of Transport??) plans to get rid of stretches of single-track?

 
route14 Chief Commissioner

Would we be limited to pricey Australian manufacturers?

Whether its single, double or some of both, they make a lot of trains in China, India and Korea, some of them very good.

- rick57



Yes, Changchun rollingstock factory in north east China does make good trains.

 
Speed Minister for Railways

What are the (recently renamed Dept of Transport??) plans to get rid of stretches of single-track?

- Rick57



Given that they've resignalled this year to increase the number of peak-hour movements possible along the single-track stretches, I don't see duplication happening soon.

 

You must be logged in to reply

  Search thread   Image gallery
« 1 2 3 4 of 5 5 »
 
Display from: