[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Changes in Melbourne



Roderick Smith wrote:
> 
> Another solution would be to run six-car trains splitting at Ringwood.
> This is what Scharfenburg couplers were designed to make easy.  Try
> visiting Netherlands to see effective and efficient use of this technique.
> 

Yes but I am sure the Netherlands also look after their couplers
properly. If I am not mistaken, Scharfenburg couplers come with covers
under normal circumstances. In Victoria's case, to save money, we bought
them without the covers. Indeed about a year or so ago, all lines except
Upfield ran 6 car trains off peak purely because the Scharfenburg
couplers weren't seperating with any reliability. All of them urgently
underwent maintenance over a period of roughly 6-8 weeks (am not sure
exactly as it was a while ago now) and when enough were overhauled to be
vaguley reliable, the services went back to normal. Having said all
that, I doubt they are reliable enough to seperate trains regulalry with
eg at Ringwood (or Dandenong possibly for that matter). And I am sure
passengers would prefer to change trains than have no train at all.

> Passengers would be more inclined to change trains if Melbourne stations
> were designed for cross-platform interchange.  Box Hill, Blackburn and
> Ringwood would all benefit from having three tracks served by two island
> platforms (ie the centre track has platform faces on each side).  This is
> common practice overseas, and there were two examples in Adelaide.  At
> least the current government has stopped used the phrase 'World best
> pracice', something which has not been adopted in any phase of our
> operations.
> 
> --
> Regards
> Roderick Smith
> Rail News Victoria Editor