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.
I did consider these issues, and you are absolutely right for CL services, the extra door is redundant. But I figured 1 door per segment isn't enough for commuter or local regional services, and the design goal is a universal vehicle. Hence the retention of 4 doors per car. Endorer doors don't meet modern accessibility standard (AFAIK, IMHO - having tried to get prams and bikes in and out of them). Hence the centre segment - with the disabled toilet - only has wider access only doors in my design. There may well be evacuation standard issues with reducing the number of doors but emergency doors behind removable seats could address this.
There are too many toilets in my design, but I think the "solution" is have 50% of the cab-trailers have luggage racks or bike lockers or something instead of a 3rd dunny. 1 (disabled) toilet between 250 PAXC on a regional local is plenty, and 2 per 210 PAX on a long distance train is enough as well. The DD design could probably do with just a single toilet and some luggage space instead. I didn't really want to have 2 classes of vehicle just because one doesn't have it's toilet installed so figured it was beyond the scope of a photoshop only project.
- 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.
I didn't set out with the intention of using an articulated design. But for almost all of NSW Train's applications a 200-250 seat unit size was about right. A classic M-T pair was a touch too small for anything other than the Xplorer routes, and required a larger number of vehicle types to cover all the required applications. And a 4 car train is too big. The closest in the design stylers used in Australia are the 3 car V'Locity sets (CM-T-CM), but even that has issues if it's to run in less than 3 car formations because you have to have multiple types of cab units (as well as the extra motors).
There are really only 2 routes in all of NSW Train's portfolio where a 200 seat DMU is overkill, and that's Moree and Griffith. That's perhaps 2 or at most 3 superfluous segments vs the advantage of a universal fleet of in excess of 100 vehicles.Edit:
I'm also of the view that sub 100 loads really aren't viable for a train. You only need a single high capacity bus to do the job of the Moree or Griffith train, and designing your fleet around these micro services. These services - if they are to be retained by rail - really need a single rail car. It's a question of whether or not the operating savings of a small vs tiny train justify building a custom vehicle specifically for them.
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)
This is something I completely overlooked, focusing more on Power:Mass and loading gauge issues. Finally a good reason to question an articulated design!
Reviewing the specs of current similar vehicles: the Endorers are 60t, the XPT coaches 40t and the XP Power Cars 75-80t (so 19t/axle for the XPs, 10t/a for XPT coaches & 15 for the Endorers).
Only about 1/3rd (perhaps more, but substantially less than half) of the mass of the trailers rests on the shared centre trucks, which is 23t to go with the 55t (or so) of the cabless motor which puts it 19-20 tare. Given it's 4 axles vs an XPT's 8 with similar loadings it shouldn't be an issue unless CL starts running trains to Lake Cargelligo. The EMU version is probably fine too, as the centre segment of the EMU is going to weight 30t or less and the articulated design probably helps more than hinders.
The issue is with the DMU DD version, not just because it's more massive but because the front truck has to be placed well forward to enable enough length in the lower deck's well, so more of the mass has to rest on the shared truck. Axle weight could be as high as 25t in this format, and coping with de-sparking is a particular design objective. Maybe this isn't really a show stopper, but probably back to the drawing board for me I think.
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.
CityRail manages with effectively no attendants. I've tried to organise things to operate to a budget rather than a specification, and that means 1:200 attendant ratio (ignoring trainees). The concept I have for 2 man crew operation is each crew member is qualified to perform all duties on the train. The 2 crew member's share the driving (fatigue management) but alternate doing attendant work and having complete breaks while not driving. And at major stations, the crew member operating the trains secures it, locks the cab behind them then assists PAX who need it board/disembark (ie what coach drivers do).
For this to work the operation requirements of the cabin attendant need to be reduced, which IMHO is another reason to ditch checked baggage (so only PAX who really need help get it alowing most able bodied PAX to deal with their own luggage) and allocated seating.
I know a lot of drivers here won't like this, but that's the sort of flexibility expected of people in the hospitality industry these days.
... 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.
Agreed. But the way the way I've handled it here is with a galley. Orders are taken as now (or through the smart phone/web app), payment made in advance (TA's mobile EFTPOS) but preferably as part of the ticket. Meals are heated, then dispensed when ready (PAX come and collect from the galley over 30 min or so). Hot food and alcohol is only available at meal time.
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...
This in unquestionably a compromise, but what I have in mind is this (from V-Line loco hauled coaches):
You have to appreciate that it's is highly unlikely that even on fully booked services anyone is going to spend 5 hours in the 5th seat. Most (and in many cases all) of the time the 5th seat will remain unoccupied. It's only necessary when loading exceeds 80%. But this is only going to work in conjunction with no allocated seating. PAX can sort it out among themselves where they sit in real time, rather than trying to let a computer guess the PAX preferences in advance before the final train loadings is known.
And I should also point out this is more space that PAX get on a road coach.
Again the reason behind this compromise is to have a universal vehicle for not just CL but also the NSW Trains commuter and regional routes.