xxxxlbear, I'm inclined to think that Jajb94 has an important point about varying passenger numbers and thus varying train consists. Check out the bold bit.
It's partly why I'm so keen on individually-coupled DMU stock.
I agree about a unified diesel fleet, cutting it from four types (X, E, N, J) to one, but I'm not so sure that the V set replacement should be tied into it; I don't think the DD option is really needed for country services.
EDIT: About articulated trains, the best example to point to would be the Eurostar sets (British Rail Class 373).
Appreciate the effort you have gone. A couple of points
- The 2nd set of doors per car is a waste of space, if you put the toilet there and a rack for luggage you get another row of pax without them sitting in the the crush zone. For country services they are not needed and in the case of some stock like RTT and XPLR, you can only use one set of doors on end cars anyway. The end of the car is also a good spot for vending machines which I support. One for cold food and drinks, one for hot.
- There are two issues I will flag on the articulated design.
1) Reduced Flexibility of train sets. However if the fleet is big enough and standard, ie servicing both current XPT and XPLR services I see this less of an issue. My plan as posted a few pages back on like for like replace had a total of around 60 cars if all single car DMU's. More if you eliminate night services and run day only. A mix of 2, 3 and 4 car sets would do the job and provide alot of flexibiilty.
2) Axle loading? If the car weight is currently aroudn 50-60t, thats up to 12.5-15t/axle, which has far less negative impact on the track and hence the higher speed. Get rid of one bogie and you are pushing +20t/axle (even with the 2nd bogie weight removed) and this will see you cut back in speed to super freighter standards. You can reduce the weight with shorter cars coping what the trams are like and in reality you would have been shorter anyway (another reason to get rid of 2nd doors)
Trains should and will remain DOO.
Trains will have at least one on board attendant per 100 people at the highest, perhaps even lower, say 1 per 50-60 people. You need this to assist with luggage, especially elderly which CL carry alot of. You also need to have ticket inspection and someone to settle the unwashed when after a few hours sitting next to each other they start to get unruly. For such long services, you cannot avoid the need for an attendant.
... behind the service buffet which again is needed for supply of alcohol, hot food, icecreams etc. Vending machines are limited to cold drinks, tea/coffee, chips and lollies etc.
Long haul trains will be 2+2, 2+3 is not reasonable for long distances on the NSW loading guage. But fixed seating in my view is fine and the tables in the middle is also a good touch. First class maybe 1+2 to enable extra wide seats.
Three by two seating for a journey that's typically five hours or so in length? And they whinge about Oscar seating today...
Very interesting discussion guys. But it's all pointless waffle as Railcorp's Asset Management is seriously considering another refurb for the XPTs. I think they hope to get another 8-10 years out of the old girls. The state government will go for it, as it is by far the cheaper option then having to buy new trains. The thing that will kill the XPTs will be fatigue of the power car frames and at present they are still sound. The trailers will last forever, and as long as Railcorp/Sydney Trains/NSW Trainlink are happy to fork out $800,000 to MAN for each engine/alternator overhaul, then the old girls will just keep soldiering on.V/locity trains are fine for an xpt replacement, if kitted out right.
The XPTs will carry on until they are well and truly knackered, then they will be taken out the back and garotted. My feeling is that the future of country train travel will be in the hands of Oscars, Hunter style DMUs and connecting private bus services (though I hope to be proved wrong).
For those interested I managed to knock up a 1:50 scale prototype of what I have in mind: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5336/8953015671_293e9a4219_z.jpgNice, but this actually what some people want from the NSWGR
Duplex, the 8-10 yr time frame you mention is when I have always focused on when the XPT and not far behind the XPLR will be looked at for replacement. At which time the XPLR's while not fully aged would be used to operate the V-set services on the mountains and boost the other NSW commuter DMU services. This then This then provides the clean slate for the current CL services. Hence why I think focusing only on XPT is not looking at the big picture.
Ok I understand your proposal. DM-T-DM with bogies Powered-Trailer-Trailer-Powered. Yeah I think you can make this work and get the weight right. The DMU would have two engines each past mid point towards the drivers cab. All the other heavy bits such as traction motors or hydraulic hang over the non-shared bogie under drivers cab.
Seats wise, sorry long haul has to be 2+2. Hop on plane flight for 5-12hr and see what they offer. Arm rest is a must and the "middle seat is only used when really busy" doesn't work. If I travel with my family, I want four seats together so there will be three of us spread across + 1 on another seat. If we have the 5th seat used by another, then they will be sitting in between us or to side, my kids will smeg if they don't have a window or this person will be on the aisle seat with us talking and moving across them. Even for other passenger combinations I see this as being a complete mess. Again this is not a short haul up the mountains/coast for which the family would use this 5th seat. If this train platform is used on commuter services, like the ENVR, it can be fitted with 2+3, but they are not compatible. 2+3 also doesn't leave much room with wise, something that does come into play over long haul as people change the position of their bum and try and sleep.
DD, NSW has a design, it works and if they need more they can buy them and would be cheaper than a green field design.
Middle of trailer is the Buffet, being in middle it helps break the length of the car and noise levels by pax. Also central on the train. Vending machines are also placed next to luggage racks
The idea of the driver securing the train to assist pax loading, no! ... Once on train the pax need more services than a suburban service. You need to check tickets, seating, alert people for upcoming stops and assist with luggage, prams and less able bodies.None of which is on the critical path, and can be done by the on board passenger attendant in their own sweet time. But assisting the 60 ladies from Merimbula quilter's guild load their luggage most definitely is!
I think a fixed set of 200-250 is probably getting too big and reduces the required flexibility for operational and maintenance purposes. The current XPT is 268 people in 6 car arrangement for day service. So a fixed train of 130-150 capacity is probably on the money to suit the 2 car services, 3 car and larger XPT services.
I'm inclined to suspect that RTT_Rules is referring to the V set design, not the suburban one.Yes Watson, exactly not sure where DIF01 was thinking of. I only ever mention and refer to replacement of the aging V-sets used currently on the mountains route where the newere stuff is too big. It has been speculated for some time what will the govt do as these V-set approach retirement and others have speculated about the O/H needing some major overhaul in not too distant future. Someone mentioned XPT pax cars will live forever, well the V-sets are not and I assume one day the XPT cars will be the same. Hence I refer to using the current XPLR cars to take over the V-sets thus enabling the V-sets to be retired and the O/H on the mountains past the termination point for the standard DD's to be also retired. Not supporting, but just speculating and providing an option.
I think 4 across seating for about 150 will be about the right number, but maybe still too high for 3 car articulated. (I'll try and do a mock up on weekend (tomorrow here) in length and see what the actual numbers are using a 3 car XPLR set as basis.). I'd also have two engines for relibility. With a single engine able to maintain 50-60kmhr on steepest banks and 2 x Aux engines with 100% redundency with some load shedding.
RTT_Rules, have you flown on the newer type of 'articulated' seat in Y? The seat back reclines, but the seat pan moves forward too. Experiments with fixed-back 'shell' seats have been disastrous, as CX's passengers found out at the back of the bus.
Now, how many services normally run less than three cars besides Griffith and Moree? If we cut these services (GASP) it'd allow for a different design optimised at a longer base set; after all, the Xplorer is optimum at three to four cars; two-car Xplorers are imbalanced. If we can set the minimum set length to three 78' cars, I have another idea up my sleeve (using sub-ideas collated from some here).
But lets look at another issue first, train length for an articulated train. If we assume the bogie centres for the XPLR cars are maximum spaced, then when you make it articulated then the cars get reduced by around 1.9m at each of the joined ends. This comes from seats and on the 3 car XPLR totals around 62 seats, reducing the 3 car XPLR from 156 to 84 seats. You can pull back two rows of seats, maybe three by removing some doors and basically reducing from 4 to 2 doors for pax use on either side and doing something with drivers doors. So lets say 3 rows pull back 12 seats for total of 96 seats. So this probably makes each set a driver + attendant operation.I don't think that analysis is quite right, because in an articulated design the lead car sticks out further over the lead bogie for weight distribution reasons.
Have you looked at our Locos module lately? Dive in and expand your knowledge!