++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. I am not comparing an extremely old train with Comeng rollingstock - as
you point out lower down in your post, the 4D design is much newer than the
original Comeng design hence I would expect it to be better. However, it has
the spartan anti-graffiti look rather than the comparatively comfortable
feel of a Comeng carriage. Having been on a V set, I can vouch for its
comfort - but we are talking about a train that was designed to be travelled
in for between 90 and 210 minutes - not the 10-60 minutes of a typical
suburban trip (Warragul line excepted). I agree it is a matter of
specification - but more comfortable specifications would reduce passenger
space thus negating some of the use of a double decker train. Having said
all that, my point would perhaps be that more comfortable design would be
required in a DD train and for the cost would probably be unlikely to
happen.
>
>-----------------------------
>Michael Walker wrote:
>The current Comeng rollingstock is excellent for accessibility by those
>with bikes, strollers, prams, walking frames, etc as it is single deck
>throughout as opposed to the 4D which is only accessible at the ends by
>these types of passengers.
>
>
>-----------------------------
>
>This is splitting hairs, I know, but what difference would it make? The 4D
>is the same length as a 3-car Comeng set, and there are 8 doors per side on
>the 4D as opposed to 9 doors on a Comeng or Hitachi.
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I stand corrected here on my mathematics - but I still stand on the issue of
bikes, etc. One extra doorway increases standing room and still allows for
extra bikes and things to get on and off, even if it is only one extra door.
You are partially right in that I am splitting hairs - but every bit counts
in speeding up a railway - enough small changes can add up to significant
improvements. To use an example, the old British Rail found that for every
1% they could spped up running time correlated roughly to an extra 1%
increase in patronage. In theory, in Melbourne, if you can cut 1 minute
(which in itself is seemingly insignificant) from a 50 minute journey, you
can expect a 2% increase in patronage - on a train that can carry 500
passengers, this corresponds to an extra $10 people paying around $7 for a
ticket adding $70 to revenue - this almost pays for a part time staff member
for a day. Cut another minute off and roughly another $70, etc,etc,etc.
Multiply this by the number of trains per hour (say between 20 per hour for
a 3 min freq. as per Ringwood to City peak or worst case 3 per hour for 20
min. freq. ala Upfield line) and you potentially could get between $210 per
hour and $1400 per hour without hiring extra staff or increasing costs.
>-----------------------------
>Michael Walker wrote:
>When the 4D was introduced, it was found it was considerably slower
>loading and unloading compared to a Comeng as the 4D had only two doors per
>carriage as opposed to the Comeng which had 3. This would need to improve
>for future designs.
>
>
>-----------------------------
>Michael Walker wrote:
>The 4D cost $20m for the four car set vs.. $6m for a Comeng three car set.
>
>
>-----------------------------
>
>Wasn't there a considerable time difference between the Comeng sets and the
>4D? Also, the 4D was a one-off build, and a fleet build would bring down
the
>cost - economies of scale. We are also talking about four carriages, as
>opposed to three.
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Initially from the first Comeng to the first 4D was roughly 7 years - the
Comeng was introduced in 1981 and the 4D was a Federal Bicentenial project
dating it around 1988. According to p8 of Feb 98 RNV, the cost of living in
1988 is 1.5 x the cost in 1981 using the FitzHerbert table. So assuming the
figure I have quoted is from 1981, the comparable cost of the Comeng in 1988
vs. the 4D (assuming the contract followed the CPI and wasn't calculated in
some other way designed to save the government money as prices increased) is
$9m. This means the 4D would need to be less than half the design unit cost
to carry the 1/3 more people quoted by yourself. I guess a rough compromise
would be $9m x 4/3 for equivalent carrying capacity ie $12m. This is still
about 60% of the initial cost - would it come down that much for a
production run. Also, what about the theoretical cost savings from using the
Tangara design for the prototype. Sure, the modifications would have cost a
significant amount but not compared to starting from scratch from design
through to moulds and finished product. I suspect that the Tangara will
still cost more to buy per potential passenger than an equivalent Comeng.
>-----------------------------
>Michael Walker wrote:
>Would the new private companies be so keen on double decker trains if the
>cost continues to be similarly high compared to the equivalent Comeng.
After
>all, you can fit far more people into 3 three car Comeng sets than 1 double
>deck four car set.
>
>
>-----------------------------
>
>Since when? There was considerable confusion when the 4D was introduced
>amongst the media over the fact that one carriage on the 4D had the same
>seating capacity as one Comeng carriage - the mainstream media was saying
>things like "Whats the point of getting them if they dont hold any more?"
>
>The point was that, although the carriages hold the same number of people,
>they are shorter, and the standard length treain is four carriages, hence,
a
>standard train holds 33% more people.
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My point was that 3x3 car sets (ie 9 Comeng carriages) would still hold more
people than the equivalent 4D (ie 4 Double Deck carriages)
>-----------------------------
>Michael Walker wrote:
>I would suggest that most companies investing in transport would probably
>see our current rollingstock being quite adequate for a number of years.
>
>
>-----------------------------
>
>There is nothing wrong with the rolling stock - it is perfectly adequate.
>The issue is one of capacity. A lot of Melbourne's lines are at saturation
>point in peak periods - there is no way to increase the number of trains.
>The only way to carry more people, which is, after all how the private
>copmpanies will want to increase profits, is to increase capacity, and if
>they can't run more trains, they will have to carry more people per train.
>This means either cramming more people in (with a consequent decline in
>quality and comfort, and with it patronage) or going for higher capcity
>rolling stock.
>
Since writing my post, I saw an article stating that the Hitachis would be
considered for replacement in 2005. Knowing what governments and private
companies are like at spending money let alone to replace trains only 8
years after refurbishment, I would be surprised to see any new trains then
except to increase capacity as described above. I agree that to some degree
that some lines are near capacity. I would argue though, that the only line
that really qualifies as being near capacity is Ringwood to the City. As was
discussed in a thread not long ago, this could be increased still by more
judicious timetabling. Examples would be terminating trains at Box Hill
rather than Blackburn thus allowing extra paths from Ringwood to be used
instead of short sheeting capacity by only running the trains from
Blackburn. Also, more trains can be run express on the 'local' lines as the
'local' trains only run every 15 minutes during the peak.
Another point I thought of was that the only company needing to look
seriously at the issue of capacity is Hillside Rail due to the
above-mentioned Ringwood-City capacity. Bayside has a lot of capacity left
on all its North Melbourne Loop lines and significant capacity left on its
Caulfield Loop lines (effectively Dandenong and Frankston line trains can be
treated as having their own tracks to the City - and by the current
timetable neither line has the 3 minute peak timetable of the Ringwood- City
section indicating quite a bit of capacity left especially on the Frankston
line). Hillside Rail is unlikely to buy specialised DD trains as it cannot
run them on the Clifton Hill group of lines with which it interchanges
trains frequently during the week. Even the 4D is stuck with a timetable
which hardly taxes its capacity running local trains to Box Hill and back as
this is one of the few rosters which doesn't require a trip on one of the
Clifton Hill lines. Besides, for the money it would need to spend on a fleet
of 4Ds and for the pain in the neck required to operate them on a few of its
lines, it would be better spending the money on a third line between
Ringwood and Box Hill. I wouldn't be surprised if this is being thought
about as the new Ringwood signalling project is going to include a third
platform.
To summarise a long post, I would argue that a new company would need to
decide if DD trains would overcome capacity problems enough long term to
justify the higher initial cost and the inconvenience required to operate
them. Or whether such a solution is merely prolonging the inevitable need to
increase capacity by duplicating track. I guess time will tell.