In reality Sydney Trains would never achieve that using double deckers because you wouldn't get 2,000 in or out of them in a reasonable dwell. Those limited doors and the distance from them is the issue. (I know the Paris ones have 3 doors which makes a difference.) SIngle deckers with 3 or 4 doors per car you definitely would. With Sydney Trains there is always a signifcant real-world difference between theory and practice. I know you like double-deckers but they're good for outer suburban (like Penrith or Campbelltown) and interurban only.

Tony P
---InTramsDownUnder@..., <rodsmith@...> wrote :

The diagram proves nothing: the two loading tracks converge onto a single departure track, which won't be signalled for 90 s headways, and as soon as the corner is turned at Lidcombe, no track to the city is signalled for 90 s headways, otherwise Sydney would have had vastly better services for decades.
The slower loading is a management myth: the loss of time for slower loading is more than balanced by the total passengers per hour per track. At normal specified performance, and with speed-proving approach signalling (as installed at Circular Quay in 1955, and as used on Paris RER line A), there are 80 s available for boarding with 120 s headways, and I have never measured a Sydney set go beyond 70 s.
2000 passengers on 30 tph = 60 000 per hour.
1200 passengers on 40 tph = 48 000 per hour.
Sao Paulo metro tried for 90 s headways, and didn't succeed.

Dame Vera Lynn's 100th-birthday celebations:
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-39326024 http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-39326024

Roderick