I updated myself on the proposed C series for Perth and, while Barnett put them on the shelf, the new government may well get them going again. They have *4* doors per car and, while they run in 6 car sets in Perth, 7 cars equals a Sydney 8 car in train length (the Perth carriages are 4 metres longer), so on a total count will very realistically carry 1,400 passengers. With 4 doors per car they'd exchange those passengers in a jif at any station in regular service. The Sydney double deckers struggle at 1,200 passengers. The RailCorp special event figure of 1,750 would never be achieved in regular service and I wonder whether it would realistically be achieved at a special event. The fundamental problem is lack of doors and real-world reluctance of passengers to move into the central saloons. So the equivalent of a Perth single decker at 1,400 passengers with short dwells vs Sydney double decker 1,200 passengers with longer dwells doesn't really add up in favour of the double deck.
Lack of doors in any vehicle in a high-turnover operation is a fundamental hindrance. It's why Sydney's double deck trains are slow, why front-door loading in buses is a disaster, why dropcentre trams with doors only in the middle and saloon trams with doors only at the ends were evolutionary dead-ends. Sydney got it right with its crossbench cars, the predecessor to the modern low-floor trams with multiple doors end to end (that is if the client agency is bright enough to get the specs right), metro trains get it right and those multi-door buses in Europe get it right. Doors have to be in immediate proximity an even spread of passengers. No doors = no passengers in that part of the vehicle on shorter trips - or a long wait while they struggle to the nearest door. Or don't wait, shut the doors on them and carry them on, which means on future trips they'll wise up and congregate near a door and block the way to filling the vehicle. Not rocket science.
Slower loading (that is slower passenger exchange both ways) is not a myth with deckers - bus or train - and it's certainly not offset by greater capacity as the Perth C (or B) series spec clearly demonstrates. Double deckers just can't do the work of single deckers on the high turnover work, but they're very good for long-distance, low turnover (must be both) work. The reason there's a metro to Sydney's NW is that, while it is a long distance, it will also be high turnover.
By the way, I read that ABC "myth buster" piece about double vs single deckers. It's bs based on very selective statistical parameters. Anything from the ABC is like that saying about the BBC - "is it true or did you hear it on the BBC?"
By the way, a piece of information came out of TfNSW in a recent report that capacity in Sydney trains and buses is measured at 2.5 ppsm because of the loading/passenger exchange issues with these vehicles, Considering that the most modest, comfortable international standard is 4 ppsm (some jurisdictions even calculate at 5 or 6 ppsm), this is pretty appalling and highlights the problems with these vehicles and the way they're operated. But I do maintain that deckers (bus or train) are good for long-distance, low trunover work where more seating is required.
Tony P
---InTramsDownUnder@..., <prescottt@...> wrote :
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