Re: Melbourne Double deckers

[Richard <richard_snook@primus.com.au>]

Dave Proctor wrote:

> 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.
>

Seems to me ..that half the problem with baording/alighting during heavy traffic
is that many havent got seats and are in the way!! Whilst I agree that there are
fewere points of entry I feel that the Tangara like approach is better for
orgainising people....especially as during peak most are getting on  and
thanonly getting off at limited number of stations...there is no perfect
solution...but the point of original post is I have seen no consideration whats
oever from either or any party  concerned to the "idea" of double deckers...it
seems dismissed out of hand...like its some "Melbourne" thing...youd think with
a brath of fresh air that all cards were on the table!!

cheers >:~)) Richard