Re: [NSW] Cityrail Millennium Train

[BEE EFF <mcreely@pnc.com.au>]

All,

Based on what I've seen between construction techniques between Clyde and
Goninans, I would rather be on a Clyde built piece of equipment in some sort of
an accident.

Look at the structural differences between an 82 class and an NR(NR has a lot
more glass and fibreglass in the cab area).

I don't know whether the same will apply with EMU's or not, but based on track
record there will be bugs with the Clyde units, but I believe they will
probably be a much better train than the Tangara(indigenous translation: white
mans sh.t)once they get those bugs sorted out.

Just some personal observations

Regards BEE EFF

Tezza wrote:

> "Geoff Lillico" <glillic@msn.com.au> wrote in message
> JApl6.1603$v5.5993@newsfeeds.bigpond.com">news:JApl6.1603$v5.5993@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> | Yes there are standards in place.
> |
> | I would hazard a guess and say that not one correspondant to this thread
> is
> | a structural engineer and nor am I, but unless you have substantiated
> | evidence to the contrary, I believe it is unwise to suggest that these new
> | trains do NOT comply to the standards set for the Bureau of Rail Safety of
> | D.O.T. or those of the Australian Standards Authority.
>
> He never suggested any such thing and so what if he did.
>
> |
> | "Chris" <chrisc@fl.net.au> wrote in message 3a961f9a$1@fl.net.au">news:3a961f9a$1@fl.net.au...
> | > it looks like it has the structural rigidity of a paper bag, I heard in
> | the
> | > USA they have structural standards for new passenger rolling stock in
> case
> | > of accident, (just like cars). Do we have the same?