Re: Melbourne Double deckers

["Roderick Smith" <rodsmith@werple.net.au>]

Oh dear,
If this is the PTUA position, we are better off without a PTUA.

If Melbourne had double-deck trains on the Burnley group, all trains could
go around the loop, instead of the peculiar some-each-way pattern which
evolved for political reasons.

Right now this is possible if 90 sec headways could be maintained for 30
minutes sustained.  However, the Burnley tunnel is at capacity.

A two-car dd set is roughly equivalent to a three-car single deck one.

Double-deck is increasingly popular in other countries.

We already have the clearances to run them on the Ringwood lines - no extra
expense necessary.

They can run to Pakenham, with restrictions at platforms.  No major
structural work would be needed to run them on this route: just slicing
back some platform coping (relatively quite cheap).

While dd has the reputation of being slower to unload, Netherlands research
showed that this was soluble: the stairways must be wide enough for
bidirectional travel.  Any train will be slowed if people stay at their
seats until the train has stopped, rather than move to a doorway in
anticipation.

The latest RER double-deck trains use a three doorway solution.

The sooner Melbourne starts implementing a dd solution the better.

-- 
Regards
Roderick Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor

Vaughan Williams <ender2000@my-deja.com> wrote in article 
> 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.