Re: Melbourne Double deckers

["Richo" <richardc@tpg.com.au>]

Vaughan Williams <ender2000@my-deja.com> wrote in message
7vr8ie$5fa$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:7vr8ie$5fa$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > 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.

Its a shame the PTUA feel this way - it is alright having to stand from
Camberwell in, but from Ringwood they need more seats - it is a quality of
service thing.
>
> 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.

So they were in expensive in Sydney too. The tunnels on Cowan bank all had
to be redone, as did the Glenbrook and Lithgow tunnels and countless others.
But they bit the bullet and did them. And they amplified the number of
tracks - St Marys, Epping, around Ingleburn and so on.

> 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.
>
Agreed. Signalling needs to be targetted downwards. Consistent stopping
patterns and extra tracks would see a desirable 1 minute frequency between
Ringwood and the city
> 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.
>
Both DDs and the extra tracks are necessary. It was never a choice in
Sydney- both were needed.
> 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.
>
Sydney people know to get up before the train arrives - if they did the
Melbourne thing of bolting for the door when the train arrives, they
wouldn't be able to get past the incoming passengers.
> 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.
>
No I can think of even better things to spend money on - both DDs and extra
track. Hillside operate Belgrave/Lilydale largely separate from the other
lines which don't need DDs. A dedicated fleet for that line would be
justified - IIRC the Ringwood line used to carry more than the rest of the
system combined. An hour train ride from Lilydale/Belgrave needs to be made
in comfort, and the Comengs tho' nice just don't make the grade.

>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.




  -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including  Dedicated  Binaries Servers ==-----