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