Thanks, Tony.
I travelled many times on an R or R1 out to Vaucluse, and I do rather doubt that there
would have been much chance of 80 standing - if thee were the conductor could have hardly
got around! On the other hand, 6 in each compartment on an O or P would have been a light
loading, I reckon.
Regards
Dudley
_____
From:TramsDownUnder@... [mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 October 2017 9:46 PM
To:TramsDownUnder@...
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] R/R1 and P/O capacity and tie rods, was: Couplers and Moonee
Ponds
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 ga uge 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: mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.comTramsDownUnder@... [
mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 October 2017 8:57 PM
To: mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.comTramsDownUnder@...
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 littl e 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: mailto:prescottt@ymail.comprescottt@...
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links