Y'all sound like Umbridge from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Progress for the sake of progress must be discouraged. Let us preserve what must be preserved, perfect what can be perfected and prune practices that ought to be prohibited.

I believe that technology used right is good for the railway, but we must be careful not to overdo it.

Is it just me or was the guy in video walking alongside an unpowered train that was rolling? I couldn't see any overheads!

There are hiccups along the way, but remember that one of the reasons that technology is "introduced" (or updated) is that it is expected to reduce cost, or improve service, in the long term, despite any short term pain associated with its introduction.  

And while there's the odd exception to the contrary, history generally shows That Is Exactly What Happens.

Another reason is simply because when it comes time to upgrade, new technology in vogue at the time is adopted as a matter of course. In other words, forty years later, that is what the engineers are offering and recommending, and they have the reports and studies to "prove" its superiority. It is very often not superior in every way to what preceded it, but that is what we end up with.

the high tech approach to signalling with "Super Signalboxes" all computerised with ATRICS, whilst has improved some efficiencies, it has De-skilled many in the boxes that now struggle when things go wrong, and are very INEFFICIENT when having to operate manually (not a criticism of the staff, it's not their fault the powers that be made these decisions ) and the amalgamation of many signal boxes into one has taken away redundancy that now means if something affects one box, massive parts of the network come to a halt. Look what happened when Strathfield/Homebush was evacuated. Look what happened when the computers at Sydenham crashed. The quest for high tech has made the network MUCH more vulnerable to problems.

Ain't that the truth!
More than a decade after it was introduced to NSW, the list of criticisms with modern computerised signal control systems and the boxes they operate in isn't short.

The equivalent Victorian services have far more toilets per train.

The political demands of having to implement as many initiatives of the Waterfall Inquiry meant that the waratarts were going to have a lot of features that aren't even thought of on earlier rollingstock.  That said, most of those features could gave been incorporated into new builds of existing designs without much drama, and for much less tax payer expense.  Another example of how modernising has NOT been to the benefit of the customer (cos it's all about being customer focused) is Intercity services converting to OSCars, let's not even mention seating or leg room, but the toilets. A 4 car OSCar has one toilet, a 4 car V set has 4.  Now the OSCar toilet is much more spacious and suitable for the mobility impaired, however on a packed Newcastle service last week with almost 2000 people aboard, there were only 2 toilets available to the customers (are they still customers if they are fare evaders?). Except, oh dear. The toilet in the rear half of the train wasn't operational, so the unfortunate mobility impaired passenger in the rear half of the train had no access to a toilet.  The solution isn't easy or simple, and I sure as heck don't have it, but if more focus was put into overcoming practical issues back in the design phase, there would not need to be so much engineering put into overcoming issues in the post production phases.  In short, a lot more of that rapidly diminishing commodity, "common sense" should have been used...  EVERYWHERE...

The equivalent Victorian services have far more toilets per train.

Funny you should mention toilets.

We went from a situation where there were two toilets per carriage (U-sets). Then, when the V-sets came in, it went to one toilet per carriage (being located as two toilets per trailer carriage, none in a motor carriage - justifiable, perhaps, due to the need to distribute equipment across motor-trailer pairs).

Now we have one toilet per four-car set.

So over the last few years, we have gone from eight toilets over four cars to one toilet over four cars, and the seating increase is not all that substantial.

A retrograde step or not, particularly when these trains (the H-sets) are being used for journeys approaching three hours in duration!

Dave

Funny you should mention toilets.

We went from a situation where there were two toilets per carriage (U-sets). Then, when the V-sets came in, it went to one toilet per carriage (being located as two toilets per trailer carriage, none in a motor carriage - justifiable, perhaps, due to the need to distribute equipment across motor-trailer pairs).

Now we have one toilet per four-car set.

So over the last few years, we have gone from eight toilets over four cars to one toilet over four cars, and the seating increase is not all that substantial.

A retrograde step or not, particularly when these trains (the H-sets) are being used for journeys approaching three hours in duration!

Dave

As a frequent flyer, I expected better from you. You should know that this is not a "retrograde step"; it is an "enhancement".

As a frequent flyer, I expected better from you. You should know that this is not a "retrograde step"; it is an "enhancement".

The toilets in H sets are far superior to the V set toilets in which you could not swing a cat. The H set toilets are disability compliant and suitable for a modern train. They are similar to the toilets I used on the AMTRAK "Surfliner" sets I traveled on in California.

The main problem with V sets, due to them being used in services more akin to a commuter run, are their small entry doors and lousy toilets.

Whilst a radical design at the time, and a similar design introduced on the Long Island RR as push pull sets, they also followed very conventional country passenger car design from way back. Hence the small doors and cramped toilets.

They could be modified by cutting new openings in the mezzanine area to accommodate large doors which would provide space for larger toilets. The down side is the expense and loss of seating.

The plan to purchase new sets is probably the only practical way to go, but I suggest off the shelve designs are not going to happen. Hope the rail authority chooses carefully.

The toilets in H sets are far superior to the V set toilets in which you could not swing a cat. The H set toilets are disability compliant and suitable for a modern train. They are similar to the toilets I used on the AMTRAK "Surfliner" sets I traveled on in California.

The main problem with V sets, due to them being used in services more akin to a commuter run, are their small entry doors and lousy toilets.

Whilst a radical design at the time, and a similar design introduced on the Long Island RR as push pull sets, they also followed very conventional country passenger car design from way back. Hence the small doors and cramped toilets.

They could be modified by cutting new openings in the mezzanine area to accommodate large doors which would provide space for larger toilets. The down side is the expense and loss of seating.

The plan to purchase new sets is probably the only practical way to go, but I suggest off the shelve designs are not going to happen. Hope the rail authority chooses carefully.

Obviously, the older toilets are far from ideal but this does not detract from the core message being sent by thadocta which is that over the years we have had fewer and fewer lavatories on our trains.

With the wheelchair-accessible lavatory being so large, I think the only way forward is to use a mix of wheelchair-accessible and 'closet' toilets per train.

I was looking for information on the HO Scale Tangara, and this crossed my path. PowerHouse Museum They claim something about it being a Comeng Design from 1970-1980

From the Website "





Read more: [color=#003399]http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=109498#ixzz3PzdbAksc[/color]
Under Creative Commons License: [color=#003399]Attribution Non-Commercial[/color] "

Something that might be worth mentioning in this thread is the upcoming Tangara Technology Upgrade:

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/389651,nsw-transport-gives-tangara-trains-new-life.aspx

Bit of an old article, but it's going through the tender process at the moment. There's a lot of work involved, and it'll bring the door, communications and TOS systems of the Tangara more in line with the Waratah, which have proven to be rock solid so far.