Re: Melbourne Double deckers

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

Well there you go,,,knew there would be a good reason...and thats pretty
good!!
Well put !! I concede the cause :-))

As further food for thought then...what about running 3 car trains on 10
min headways during off peak?? cut it back to 8 mins if you like!!  point
is more frequency..passenger throw timetables away..hell theres another
along any minute...expresses well advertised ...easier to mind the
sheep...ahhh people if a threee car train...so perception of safety (as
well as real safety) increases??

any sense in this??

Cheers Vaughan  >:~)) Richard

Vaughan Williams wrote:

> > the proposed guff about new train-sets is no consideration  given to
> > double deckers..Sydney has long proved the viability of the
> > concept
>
> etc etc
>
> I'll present the PTUA position here which is more or less consistent
> with my personal view as well.
>
> Melbourne does not need double decker trains and will not need them for
> the foreseeable future.
>
> At the moment there is plenty of room to slot in additional peak hour
> trains as required, and the off peak frequency should be improved
> anyway. Melbourne is so far from a capacity crisis its not funny.
>
> Double Deckers in the melbourne context, besides not being necessary,
> are a godalmighty hassle because they can't run on any line except
> Ringwood at full speed. Some lines (like Eltham) they can't run at all
> because the bridges and tunnels are too low and to fix them would be
> ridiculously expensive.
>
> Melbourne has more lines than other cities like Perth and Sydney and
> the population growth and density is never going to reach a level where
> the existing lines can't handle the traffic. The Paris Metro runs its
> trains at frequencies of more than one a minute and doesn't seem to
> bring down western civilisation in the process.
>
> The prototype double decker was a terrible waste of money on both the
> train itself and fiddling all the bridges on the ringwood line to fit
> it under - for the same money they could have done much more worthwhile
> things like build the third track beyond box hill.
>
> It just isn't worth the bother and cost to adjust all the bridges when
> there's no shortage of capacity.
>
> And double deckers ARE slower to board, not only because they have
> fewer doors but because the stairs slow down boarding.
>
> I think theres also an issue with DOO on double deckers - there was a
> long thread on that a while ago but I don't feel qualified to comment.
>
> Apart from the furtherence of train buffery and the sexual
> gratification of all you train lovers, double decker trains would serve
> no useful purpose and may even cause more problems. I can think of
> better things to spend the money on.
>
> regards
> Vaughan Williams
> PTUA Secretary
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.