Time to try double decker trains again?

 
Topic moved from Melbourne suburban by dthead on 16 Jun 2015 16:37
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
The zombie thread that just won't die! Someone new always manages to get sucked in periodically.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Oh what the hell its a slow day at work

Doors on a train:

A few people had this argument, and I failed to see the point, DD trains are 4 or 8 carriages, possessing 2 doors per carriage. Compare that to SD being 3 or 6 carriage, and 3 doors per carriage, which some are actually 2. No matter how you count it, this equals the same number of doors, although the DD's are 20 or so meters longer.


Melbourne as ~24m length cars, Sydney has ~20m on both DD and future SD trains, so incorrect assumption above. An 8 car SD train with 3 doors has 24 doors, 50% more than now in Sydney and 25% more than Melbourne

(Neutral)

The decks:

It doesn't really matter if you do have more space on a train, via the use of double decks, because the same result will be found, I don't want to use the decks, because of reasons. Many people don't want to sit down, for various reasons, if I were to hop on a train, the odds are I would decide to stand in the doorway regardless, so wouldn't it be smarter to rather then have two decks, just remove all the seats, put more doors in, so that pax like myself who are a little bit autistic can avoid having to sit next to an unknown person on a train?

1) In peak hour, get the F away from the bloody doors, you are half the problem for slow dwell times

2) The upper and lower sections of the Sydney DD trains are not of sufficient height to be deemed suitable mass standing room. I know people do it, but some of us cannot. A DD won't fit in the new portholes either

(SD)

The network:

Sydney has a very different rail network, one that makes it very expensive to buy trains for, this price prevents expansion, the price figures into every future decision. Am I going to expand the network? Hell no, it costs too damn much. Imagine if Sydney had not gone to DD, and had instead fixed it's signalling, maybe there would have been more money to run more track, run more stations, maybe they would have more tunnels by now? Every negative decision you make dooms future decisions. So, one day, as Sydney slowly adopts a metro style SD system, the old DD network will eventually be gone, slowly and surely, that is the progression. Give it 50 years, and I don't see DD in Sydney surviving, but then again I won't be there to see it, so please, bookmark this post, dig it up down the track, I am totally right.

95% of the DD network is going nowhere. Its fit for purpose and there is very little advantage or none to converting to SD. The fact that other similar longer haul networks are converting to DD demonstrates this. MYTONE, note I said longer haul.

The issue is that the bulk of the network is surface orientated. Nearly 90% of the new tracks to be built in the inner half of Sydney will need to be under ground, their construction costs are much higher than surface and hence as the initial line will be of sufficient size to operate efficiently and effectively stand alone and for the average Mr and Mrs commuter this make no difference to their experience, apart from less waiting, the correct decision was made.

(SD)

Public Vs Private:

Depending on where you live, this goes in two different directions. I live in a Labor area, boooo, no privatisation, unions FTW. Libs? Sell sell sell!!!!

That old sterotype is just that.

Honestly, I can see past the arguments, see, you need your train network in public hands, only a government could give the tick of approval to expensive DD sets. And that's the thing, private really is no different, they simply operate the network, because public workers are the laziest sacks of crap you'll ever meet. At least a private operator cares about making itself money. A private operator can say, let's skip those pesky stations as we are late, or let's cancel services to avoid fines due to a loophole.

Times have changed, the fact that other Australian commuter rail has not followed Melbourne demonstrates that the Vic's didn't realise the huge  efficenices so often quoted. Having a mix probably keeps both sides more honest. However its not uncommon to build under a BOOT arrangement and Qld Airport line is privately run just contracting QR trains to do the actual train driving.

High frequency/capacity commuter lines pretty much run stand alone and you can see that in many cities like Paris with captive rolling stock. The spaghetti networks like Sydney is moving away from is more a regional mode of operation, especially for the inner suburban lines as they get progressively more and more choked. Dedicated lines with fixed route and stopping pattern and dedicated rolling stock is the pathway to the future. Under these conditions each new line is more easily off-loaded as BOOT. The only integration could be the ticketting.

(Not sure)

We need to do this for X reason:

We need to build this NWRL as Metro and keep building more of them over the next 25 years. Something clearly needs to be done with the inner west to Paramatta and in some form I'm sure an U/G Metro will be part of the solution. We can debate the how in another thread.

As the inner suburban ring increases in density there will be more and more.  The route to Manly and Nth Beaches will happen, its a far cheaper technical solution than traditional HR and the rapid bus line they are doing now is stop gap.  

The reasons are clear, historically we have focused on what were once country passenger and freight lines come low density commuter lines. In some cases this 19th century infrastructure is grossly outdated and itself needs a reboot, I'm referring to the south North shore as case in point. So the money wont' just go to Metro, it will also go to improving the efficiency and cost base of the existing network.

  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
The upper and lower sections of the Sydney DD trains are not of sufficient height to be deemed suitable mass standing room. I know people do it, but some of us cannot. A DD won't fit in the new portholes either
RTT_Rules
Indeed, in the upper decks, the shape of the roof lowers the headroom above seats.

95% of the DD network is going nowhere. Its fit for purpose and there is very little advantage or none to converting to SD. The fact that other similar longer haul networks are converting to DD demonstrates this. MYTONE, note I said longer haul.
RTT_Rules
I know you said longer haul, but Sydney suburban pioneered the double decked multiple unit. In many European countries, they are adopting double deckers increasingly on high capacity lines where the loading gauge allows, and station spacing is typical of non-metro heavy rail. In Europe, and also North America, this tends to be long haul lines that meet these criteria.

The issue is that the bulk of the network is surface orientated. Nearly 90% of the new tracks to be built in the inner half of Sydney will need to be under ground, their construction costs are much higher than surface and hence as the initial line will be of sufficient size to operate efficiently and effectively stand alone and for the average Mr and Mrs commuter this make no difference to their experience, apart from less waiting, the correct decision was made.
RTT_Rules
Sydney developed after those railways were built, and thus it's not surprising that the network is mostly surface oriented, mostly in cuttings and on embankments. That said, surface rail does impact the amenity of the area, especially if it crosses roads on the same level with a bell sounding on train approach. So even with room for a surface alignment, undergroud may be preferred for reason of amenity and to leave more room for development, as there can be development right above the tracks.

High frequency/capacity commuter lines pretty much run stand alone and you can see that in many cities like Paris with captive rolling stock. The spaghetti networks like Sydney is moving away from is more a regional mode of operation, especially for the inner suburban lines as they get progressively more and more choked. Dedicated lines with fixed route and stopping pattern and dedicated rolling stock is the pathway to the future. Under these conditions each new line is more easily off-loaded as BOOT. The only integration could be the ticketting.
RTT_Rules
Those cities with metro style rail, as noted before, are largely confined to older cities, heavily developed before the railways came. They have it because they couldn't bring steam trains into the historic core.
Those lines wouldn't be so chocked if the network had been built according to the original Bradfield plans, these being compromsed to save initial cost.
  Boris_the_Foul Station Master

Location: Bowenfelski, City of Greater Moscow
Zombie thread resurection time...

It was purely financial. It was the 1960s.  Melbourne had the then fairly new Harris cars.  Sydney's trains were forty years old and starting to get clapped out.  Sydney needed new trains.  It also had a network over capacity and needed new track laid.   Expenses on two fronts.  So they decided that if they went DD, they'd stil have to pay for the new rolling stock, but could postpone the extra trackage,as the DD stock had more capacity.

Whether this was a success in the long term is debateable, but it was simply down to money.  It's the same reason why Melbourne kept its tram network.  It had recently had money spent on it, where Sydney's hadn't.  The cost of pulling up the Melbourne tram lines and buying buses whould have been more than leaving it be.

Forget dwell times and all the rest.  It's the beancounters in charge.

As for dwell times, a Sydney DD train tends to stop for thirty seconds (not a minute).  I'm a nerd and have timed it.  Thhis is not a function of the trains beibg double deck (I think Melbourne dwell times are similar).  It's to do with safety regs, insurance, and door interlocking.  Back in the 80s, I timed the dwell times on DD stock (with my whiz bang digital watch), and the guard would pop the doors open before the train had come to a stand.Regular commuters would stand in fron of the front door in the direction of travel because it woul open first, ansd you'd make a clean getaway.  Dwell time?  Ten seconds.  Same trains.  It's nothing to do with DD versus SD.
  theanimal Chief Commissioner

Zombie thread resurection time...

It was purely financial. It was the 1960s.  Melbourne had the then fairly new Harris cars.  Sydney's trains were forty years old and starting to get clapped out.  Sydney needed new trains.  It also had a network over capacity and needed new track laid.   Expenses on two fronts.  So they decided that if they went DD, they'd stil have to pay for the new rolling stock, but could postpone the extra trackage,as the DD stock had more capacity.

Whether this was a success in the long term is debateable, but it was simply down to money.  It's the same reason why Melbourne kept its tram network.  It had recently had money spent on it, where Sydney's hadn't.  The cost of pulling up the Melbourne tram lines and buying buses whould have been more than leaving it be.

Forget dwell times and all the rest.  It's the beancounters in charge.

As for dwell times, a Sydney DD train tends to stop for thirty seconds (not a minute).  I'm a nerd and have timed it.  Thhis is not a function of the trains beibg double deck (I think Melbourne dwell times are similar).  It's to do with safety regs, insurance, and door interlocking.  Back in the 80s, I timed the dwell times on DD stock (with my whiz bang digital watch), and the guard would pop the doors open before the train had come to a stand.Regular commuters would stand in fron of the front door in the direction of travel because it woul open first, ansd you'd make a clean getaway.  Dwell time?  Ten seconds.  Same trains.  It's nothing to do with DD versus SD.
Boris_the_Foul
what safety regulations are you claiming have an effect on dwell time?

likewise with insurance?
  Boris_the_Foul Station Master

Location: Bowenfelski, City of Greater Moscow
Zombie thread resurection time...

It was purely financial. It was the 1960s.  Melbourne had the then fairly new Harris cars.  Sydney's trains were forty years old and starting to get clapped out.  Sydney needed new trains.  It also had a network over capacity and needed new track laid.   Expenses on two fronts.  So they decided that if they went DD, they'd stil have to pay for the new rolling stock, but could postpone the extra trackage,as the DD stock had more capacity.

Whether this was a success in the long term is debateable, but it was simply down to money.  It's the same reason why Melbourne kept its tram network.  It had recently had money spent on it, where Sydney's hadn't.  The cost of pulling up the Melbourne tram lines and buying buses whould have been more than leaving it be.

Forget dwell times and all the rest.  It's the beancounters in charge.

As for dwell times, a Sydney DD train tends to stop for thirty seconds (not a minute).  I'm a nerd and have timed it.  Thhis is not a function of the trains beibg double deck (I think Melbourne dwell times are similar).  It's to do with safety regs, insurance, and door interlocking.  Back in the 80s, I timed the dwell times on DD stock (with my whiz bang digital watch), and the guard would pop the doors open before the train had come to a stand.Regular commuters would stand in fron of the front door in the direction of travel because it woul open first, ansd you'd make a clean getaway.  Dwell time?  Ten seconds.  Same trains.  It's nothing to do with DD versus SD.
what safety regulations are you claiming have an effect on dwell time?

likewise with insurance?

You don't pop the doors open before the train has come to a stand.  Tha takes added seconds.  In the 70s, you'd jump out the open door while the train was still doing some speed.  Insurance is a biggie, because people like to sue these days.  Consider why they do total shutdowns and put buses on, where in the old days, it'd be single line working.  Safety regulations these days prohibit hairylegs from working next to a live running line.   It's the times we live in.
theanimal
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Zombie thread resurection time...
Boris_the_Foul
It is an armchair operators thread.

It was purely financial. It was the 1960s.  Melbourne had the then fairly new Harris cars.  Sydney's trains were forty years old and starting to get clapped out.  Sydney needed new trains.  It also had a network over capacity and needed new track laid.   Expenses on two fronts.  So they decided that if they went DD, they'd stil have to pay for the new rolling stock, but could postpone the extra trackage,as the DD stock had more capacity.
Boris_the_Foul
This was at a time when the rest of the world didn't yet use double decked multiple unit trains. Sydney suburban pioneered them.

Whether this was a success in the long term is debateable, but it was simply down to money.  It's the same reason why Melbourne kept its tram network.  It had recently had money spent on it, where Sydney's hadn't.  The cost of pulling up the Melbourne tram lines and buying buses whould have been more than leaving it be.
Boris_the_Foul
That the busiest suburban and regional heavy rail networks that can run double decker trains are progressively adopting them surely shows that it was a success.
You say that that the Sydney suburban didn't recently have money spent on it. What about all those underground railway built since electrification as well as level crossing removals?

Forget dwell times and all the rest.  It's the beancounters in charge.
Boris_the_Foul
More correctly, don't dwell on them, the important thing, in case of mainline style rail, is station spacing. One station per suburb except in very large suburbs, with an average station spacing of about a mile, in case of suburban services.
Also have two tier services on longer lines. For example, if two routes of unequal length share a corridor, then trains on the longer one run express.

As for dwell times, a Sydney DD train tends to stop for thirty seconds (not a minute).  I'm a nerd and have timed it.  Thhis is not a function of the trains beibg double deck (I think Melbourne dwell times are similar).  It's to do with safety regs, insurance, and door interlocking.  Back in the 80s, I timed the dwell times on DD stock (with my whiz bang digital watch), and the guard would pop the doors open before the train had come to a stand.Regular commuters would stand in fron of the front door in the direction of travel because it woul open first, ansd you'd make a clean getaway.  Dwell time?  Ten seconds.  Same trains.  It's nothing to do with DD versus SD.
Boris_the_Foul
But single deckers don't have stairs and may have more doors. But yes, plenty of suburban and regional networks are adopting double deckers without sacrificing service frequency.
  Boris_the_Foul Station Master

Location: Bowenfelski, City of Greater Moscow
Zombie thread resurection time...

It is an armchair operators thread.

It was purely financial. It was the 1960s.  Melbourne had the then fairly new Harris cars.  Sydney's trains were forty years old and starting to get clapped out.  Sydney needed new trains.  It also had a network over capacity and needed new track laid.   Expenses on two fronts.  So they decided that if they went DD, they'd stil have to pay for the new rolling stock, but could postpone the extra trackage,as the DD stock had more capacity.

This was at a time when the rest of the world didn't yet use double decked multiple unit trains. Sydney suburban pioneered them.

Whether this was a success in the long term is debateable, but it was simply down to money.  It's the same reason why Melbourne kept its tram network.  It had recently had money spent on it, where Sydney's hadn't.  The cost of pulling up the Melbourne tram lines and buying buses whould have been more than leaving it be.

That the busiest suburban and regional heavy rail networks that can run double decker trains are progressively adopting them surely shows that it was a success.
You say that that the Sydney suburban didn't recently have money spent on it. What about all those underground railway built since electrification as well as level crossing removals?

Forget dwell times and all the rest.  It's the beancounters in charge.

More correctly, don't dwell on them, the important thing, in case of mainline style rail, is station spacing. One station per suburb except in very large suburbs, with an average station spacing of about a mile, in case of suburban services.
Also have two tier services on longer lines. For example, if two routes of unequal length share a corridor, then trains on the longer one run express.

As for dwell times, a Sydney DD train tends to stop for thirty seconds (not a minute).  I'm a nerd and have timed it.  Thhis is not a function of the trains beibg double deck (I think Melbourne dwell times are similar).  It's to do with safety regs, insurance, and door interlocking.  Back in the 80s, I timed the dwell times on DD stock (with my whiz bang digital watch), and the guard would pop the doors open before the train had come to a stand.Regular commuters would stand in fron of the front door in the direction of travel because it woul open first, ansd you'd make a clean getaway.  Dwell time?  Ten seconds.  Same trains.  It's nothing to do with DD versus SD.

But single deckers don't have stairs and may have more doors. But yes, plenty of suburban and regional networks are adopting double deckers without sacrificing service frequency.

____________________________
I am not suggesting for a moment Sydney has not spent money on its network recently (the key word being recently).  It has.  In the 1920s, it was state of the art, thanks to JJC Bradfield (peace and blessings be upon him). and made Melbourne's single track sections and Flintstones era Taits look positively prehistoric.  But then, in typical NSW fashion, the NSW government stopped spending money on it, and Melbourne overtook us. This was the case in the 60s, when our railway was pretty dreadful.  So, I'm not suggesting we haven't played catch up re funding in the last decade or two, but go back fifty years, and our system was filthy, run down, and decrepit.  This is where the DD stock came in.

I'm not convinced about dwell times.  In Hong Kong, they have three doors per car and minimal seating, and people  charge out at speed.  Sydney and Melbourne both have two, and in my experience travelling on both systems, the dwell times are pretty much the same.  The stairway issue was a deal on the older sets, but the new ones are wideer, and you can get two abreast down them generally.  And most punters tend to make their way to the vestibule before the train stops.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for DD.  On an aesthetic level, I prefer SD. Smile

- Boris

_______________

Myrtone
  HardWorkingMan Chief Commissioner

Location: Echuca
A minor correction to the above.  The only Melbourne suburban sets with 2 doors are the Siemens everything else is 3 doors a side.  When the Double Deck train was running in Melbourne it had 2 doors a side but, in my experience, didn't clear well from around the doors due to the single person width stairs which discouraged people only going a couple of stops from using them as well as people with bikes, wheelchairs, prams, luggage etc as it was too difficult
  MetroFemme Assistant Commissioner

Why did the double deck train on the glen waverley line disappear?
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
There never was one on the Glen Waverly line.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.