Os, O/Ps and Ps were rated at 80 seats, 48 standing, Rs had 48 seats with 80 standing, R1s 56 seats, 72 standing. So all nominally had a crush load of 128 passengers. PR1 cars had one less row of seats than an R1, being shorter, so seated 52 passengers and took about 70 standees.
Tony G
> On 10 Oct 2017, at 9:20 pm, 'Dudley'transitconsult@... [TramsDownUnder] TramsDownUnder@...> wrote:
>
> "R/R1s had close to the capacity of the cross benches" - Surely you jest?
>
> As I recall it, the R class had 48 seats, and standing capacity for perhaps another 40.
> Total 88. An O or P had 80 seats, and an easy standing capacity of another 40, total 120.
> Jam packed - as was often the case, their capacity would have been more like 160, with 10
> persons standing in each of the compartments.
>
> Would it be possible to arrange a trial at Loftus to see what would have been (a) the
> comfortable, and (b) the absolute, capacity of the R and P/O classes? Perhaps a bit like
> how many people can you cram in a Mini?
>
> I suppose there is somewhere in the official records a statement re these capacities, but
> unfortunately I doubt that there was any standard for standing capacity on the lines of 4
> persons per sq metre. Or was there, and if so, what?
>
> On another query, re the use of tie-rods, what stresses are really placed on these? If
> the rails are set to gauge on Pandrol or other rail clips, and then encased in concrete,
> is there any need for a tie rod? I can see very little likelihood of any consistent
> movement of trams being able to compress the concrete between the rails, not to move the
> concrete outside the rails. Would it not be reasonable to encase the rails in concrete,
> with allowance for where the rail clips are, this concrete being expected to be easily
> broken out when the rails need to be changed, while the rest of the concrete between and
> outside the rails is expected to stay there for the life of several rail replacements?
>
> Regards
>
> Dudley Horscroft
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:TramsDownUnder@... mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 October 2017 8:57 PM
> To:TramsDownUnder@... mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Couplers and Moonee Ponds [Was: Y1 controls ... ]
>
> I do recall seeing something by Maddocks in the 1930s that R/R1s weren't considered
> high-capacity cars for mass movements because of their more restricted loading provision
> than the cross benches. Maddocks must have been the last person in NSW transport history
> (at least until the advent of the metro) to be acutely aware of the issue of capacity. He
> was forever banging on about it during the growing contemplation of replacement with
> buses. Post-Maddocks it became an inconvenient fact to be ignored. The R/R1s had close to
> the capacity of the cross benches but were a little slower to exchange passengers.
>
> On that last note, yes Maclean referenced the Brisbane dropcentre as I said, but what
> interested him most about it was the ability to also exchange passengers through the ends
> of the car as well as the centre (the Brisbane cars originally had open platforms at the
> ends before the cabs were enclosed). This car was the most direct prototype of the R and
> overcame the problems of the "cave", the dead end saloons in the Adelaide and Melbourne
> cars.
>
> Tony P
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by:prescottt@... mailto:prescottt@ymail.com
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>