Just a couple of questions. Did the original 1970s V sets have different luggage racks and have the 1970s cars all been scrapped?

Luggage racks were in the centre levels. The original sets (1970) actually had 1st Class upstairs (with air-conditioning) and down stairs was economy with recycling air only. That failed and made back to all economy after there were issues with powing the two different air handling units etc.

All series 1 have gone.

Some of the 1977 batch (series 2) were reconditioned in 2014, but a number withdrawn in 2011. Someone else may know the exact numbers.

Have they considered trying to replicate the current V set seats at all? They're the most comfortable train sets if you're tired.

Although the v sets are comfortable for the average person, they do have alot of fundamental flaws.   They have massive issues for DDA requirements, they are long and thus they are restricted in where they can operate. (this is why they don't do the south coast anymore)

In short, they should be trying to replicate the feel of the v-sets with a modern train, not replicate a 50 year old design.   To my knowledge the only 50 year old designs for anything that are still being built today is the AK-47 rifle and the boeing 747.

"To my knowledge the only 50 year old designs for anything that are still being built today is the AK-47 rifle and the boeing 747." Tazzer 96

Lockheed C 130 Hercules. Boeing 737.  Lockheed P-3 Orion - still in use, if not still being built.

Lockheed C 130 Hercules. Boeing 737.  Lockheed P-3 Orion - still in use, if not still being built.

A C130A and a C130J besides looks are very different aircraft.  A cousin who is a C130H and now J jockey states they are chalk and cheeze.  The same as a 737-1 and a 737-800 series. Also trains are hardly the same investment as an aircraft. Boeing states they spent $32B on just developing the Dreamliner before one was flown, which would be the equivalent in today's dollars in developing a 737 in the 1960s. Trains are designed and built for the cheapest client.

On a side note would a V set be better able to carry wheelchair passengers than a 737 aircraft?

On a side note would a V set be better able to carry wheelchair passengers than a 737 aircraft?

And the V Set is probably one of the most impracticable EMUs currently in Sydney to carry wheelchair passengers, another good reason to move to a new design.

Are you sure? Apart from no disabled toilets some of the cars have spaces for wheelchairs.

Are you sure? Apart from no disabled toilets some of the cars have spaces for wheelchairs.

Yes it is more friendly then an aircraft for wheelchair access. When it comes to wheelchairs, airplanes and airlines are horrendous for the disabled.

Are you sure? Apart from no disabled toilets some of the cars have spaces for wheelchairs.

Very view V sets have 'suitable' room for wheelchairs, they have to sit in the smelly, non-air-conditioned noisy vestibule.

Have they considered trying to replicate the current V set seats at all? They're the most comfortable train sets if you're tired.

Although the v sets are comfortable for the average person, they do have alot of fundamental flaws.   They have massive issues for DDA requirements, they are long and thus they are restricted in where they can operate. (this is why they don't do the south coast anymore)

In short, they should be trying to replicate the feel of the v-sets with a modern train, not replicate a 50 year old design.   To my knowledge the only 50 year old designs for anything that are still being built today is the AK-47 rifle and the boeing 747.

The V sets toilets are hopeless, and both inter-car and entry doors hopelessly in-adequate. Really all based on old passenger car designs. They all stink these days with toilets often blocked and over flowing effluent. Oh, and no CCTV to keep an eye on passenger misbehavior.

Question
Is the V set long because it's narrow or narrow because it's long?

Question
Is the V set long because it's narrow or narrow because it's long?

at 24m V Sets aren't especially long (certainly not by world standards), it's that the OSCARs are short: the same length (more or less) as the Bradfield cars 60' suburban cars.

I don't think they are especially narrow either, just not as wide as the "medium gauge" Sydney suburban fleet which evolved from the Bradfield suburban loading gauge.

Compared with Nth American and European equivalent DD rolling stock, the V sets have shorter double decks, because they have a shorter wheelbase to meet our loading gauge restrictions.

Question
Is the V set long because it's narrow or narrow because it's long?

Neither.  The v-set is only 10cm narrower than the suburban trains anyway.

One reason they are long is so they could fit a whole bunch of extra stuff in the train, like air conditioning and toilets, something which they couldn't fit into the s-sets for example.

Question
Is the V set long because it's narrow or narrow because it's long?

at 24m V Sets aren't especially long (certainly not by world standards), it's that the OSCARs are short: the same length (more or less) as the Bradfield cars 60' suburban cars.

I don't think they are especially narrow either, just not as wide as the "medium gauge" Sydney suburban fleet which evolved from the Bradfield suburban loading gauge.

Compared with Nth American and European equivalent DD rolling stock, the V sets have shorter double decks, because they have a shorter wheelbase to meet our loading gauge restrictions.

Agree on world standards they  (V-sets) are probably more standard, but Sydney has standardised on ~20m cars for many decades now, if not 100 years. There is obviously a reason as it costs more to build shorter cars than longer cars and you end up with less capacity. My understanding is that in order to get 5 seats across and still negotiate the tighter bends on old city tunnels, the cars are limited to 20m in length. The V sets and U sets still used the same tunnels, but their narrower profile off-set the extra length.

The U boats are I think around ~22m.

I assume that despite the requirement for a narrower profile for tunnels etc, the designers at the time were able to harvest a longer car to reduce costs per seat and also they were not compelled to comply with a standard 160m max length because the bulk of the stations served were either very short or very long to suit the long distance trains.

Overall, yes I love the V-sets. Spent 10 years commuting on them, however their slow dwell times at stations are a major issue and yes seeing wheel chairs stuck in the small vestivals out of the AC and in the noise and ancient inter-car doors means their journey's must soon come to an end. The B747 analogy used above is interesting as the B747 production will also soon come to an end with most being freighters and the last two being Air Force 1 and Air Force 2.

In reference to wheel chair access to planes. You will find most airlines have suitable systems in place to look after their disabled passengers and typically this exceeds the standard offered on trains. No they cannot simply remain seated in their parked wheel chairs in the cabin and especially for small planes with stairs access they may need to use a lift, but you are still taken care of. Due to the narrow aisles and doors, planes have to use specialised wheel chairs, but as the airlines provide all the systems in place, its no big deal and nothing like a commuter train, especially considering the very small number of disabled who fly.

The reason why so few disabled people fly is because of there disability. You can't just take someone out of a wheelchair and put them in a normal chair. Paraplegics and especially Quadraplegics can't just be lifted out of their wheelchair and put in a standard seat.

The U boats are I think around ~22m.

The B747 analogy used above is interesting as the B747 production will also soon come to an end with most being freighters and the last two being Air Force 1 and Air Force 2.

Air Force 2 is a C-32 (B757).
I assume you are referring to SAM28000 and SAM29000 which are planned to be replaced by 747-8. Can't fit the POTUS in a Dreamliner and they dare not put him/her in a A380 would they.  More of a 'must buy American' thing, a bit of a passion... A bit like people saying let's build more V Sets...  time to come to an end.

Am I the only one here that is just pleased to see the end of rollingstock that is 40 (ish) years old? As long as the seats are  more comfortable than the H sets that's all that really matters. As for the tray tables, charging docks etc they are an added bonus and great for the general public. Some of you need to drink some concrete, train designs will never please everyone. The fact that they are built overseas means the NSW government saves money and can spend the savings from not using Australian labour on other NSW/Sydney rail projects.

The reason why so few disabled people fly is because of there disability. You can't just take someone out of a wheelchair and put them in a normal chair. Paraplegics and especially Quadraplegics can't just be lifted out of their wheelchair and put in a standard seat.

True, but planes are built for the masses, not the odd person with significant disabilities. I'd also dare say cost is an issue for the traveller and also there maybe issues in the thinner atmosphere.

Of course if the plane touches down like EK521, its more than likely that person will not be rescued in time.

I understand the tender specification was for a standard and longer train set based on a 20m carriage length, i.e. an 8 car train of 160m and a 10 car train of 200m, the latter equivalent to an 8 car V set.  While the artistic concept design appears to be a based on the OSCAR, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will have the same specifications.  As others have already alluded to, it is likely to be of a narrower width, specifically to operate over the Blue Mountains beyond Springwood, and as a consequence the 2 + 3 seating of the OSCARs is not feasible.  It's not popular for long distance commuters anyway, so that's no great loss.  However the apparent fixed seating could be an issue.  It has never been popular in the Tangaras and hence the Millennium and Waratah designs reverted to reversible seating.  I personally don't like travelling "backwards".   It's all very well to say that it's the way trains are built overseas and we colonials just have to lump it.  Shouldn't it be about giving the customer what they want?                                                                                                                                                        


It will be interesting to see if the 10 car design is adapted for a suburban configuration with 2 + 2 seating for the Western Express from Penrith/Emu Plains to Central.

Any news on how many toilets will be included.  I would guess and say two per 4 car's.   The 1 included in the Oscars isn't enough, but the downside is all the disability approved toilets take up a lot of space.  (the one in the QLD NGR is even bigger than the current IMU's, could fit maybe 4-5 v-set/xpt loo's in it)

 However the apparent fixed seating could be an issue.  

Not for Sydney Trains.   As a passenger you choice will be either catch the train or not catch a train, no options.

Fixed seating is one of the biggest "harden the smeg up" complaints I have ever heard.
reversible seating is nice, but you know whats better, a really comfortable seat.

Only reason the tangara fixed seating was an issue was because it wasn't comfortable.   Seats on sydney trains are actually pretty uncomfortable and crappy in general.  After the new trains come in with proper comfortable seating, the only complaint people will have is because they have fallen asleep and missed there stop.

Only reason the tangara fixed seating was an issue was because it wasn't comfortable.  

Why the change to reversible seating in the Waratah's then?  Comfortable seating is a separate issue.

Only reason the tangara fixed seating was an issue was because it wasn't comfortable.  

Why the change to reversible seating in the Waratah's then?  Comfortable seating is a separate issue.

Because people put up so much of a stink about it, it was like the buttons to open the doors.
You were idiots in making sure every door opened at every station, making sure to lose all the cool air, when in reality the only time every door needs to be opened is during peak and at the very busy stations.

I was just looking at the local paper up in the Blue Mountains http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/
It seems the State MP (Labor) is making noise in Parliament on the whole replacement from being built overseas, the lack of wifi, and of course the seats. When you read their FB page, so many local-yocals are going off about the fixed seats.

They seems to have the mindsets that the V-sets are the most comfortable seating in the world and that travelling backwards causes death or something... I am guessing that very few people in the Blue Mountains have actually experienced long distance trains around the world (or even XPT/Xplorers), sitting in 'aircraft' style seating in comfort, going backwards and actually survived.