Re: Melbourne Double deckers

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@sd5.mailbank.com>]

Richard <richard_snook@primus.com.au> wrote in message
38209955.78A2DE8C@primus.com.au">news:38209955.78A2DE8C@primus.com.au...

> Regarding loading..have you actually noticed how long a peak hour train
> takes to load and unload..not whatit is supposed to but what actaully
> transpires..especially say around Sth Yaraa and Richmond ..Caulfield
> too...it strikes me thata the Tangaras with more space around those doors
> would actually be better suited to traffic..

I think that a double deck would actually take longer to load and unload -
looking at the design of the current Melbourne rolling stock, passengers can
enter at any door and immediately disperse either way within the carriage.
The three sets of doors also helps in pouring them all on.

On a double deck, it does take longer, due to the fact that there are only
two sets of door, and not as many places for them to go.

Having said that though, there is always the argument that the extra
capacity offered by double deck trains means that not as many trains would
need to run (mainly in the peaks) and they can therefore reduce headways
(from say 3 minutes to 5 mnutes) and this can allow for the extra dwell
times. Once traffic builds up to a level where 3 minute headways are
required, the public would be semi-educated and loading and unloading should
(in theory) be a bit quicker.

> Im not sure of their reliability ..but that is simply a hard requirement
of
> the design requirements...youtell the supplier it must have 9X% up time or
> else they are paying!!  Pretty standard these days

Yep - that is why ReadyPower in NSW actually built more locomotives than the
contract called for - the contract called for them to basically provide X
number of locomotives available at all times - to make sure they do, they
built X + Y. WOuld be a simple matter as well with the new rolling stock.

--
DaveProctor
thadocta AT dingoblue.net.au