On 11/10/2017 4:56 PM, Hal Cainhegcain@... [TramsDownUnder] wrote:
>

> That makes an interesting comparison with the Melbourne SW6 -

> which had either 48 or 52 seats and was rated for a crush load of 180.

>

>

> A slip of the finger, Mal? The crush load on the plan is 150, which is what I've seen elsewhere.

>

Thanks Hal,

- yes a typo!

However, the earliest plan I have seen with a 'crush load' figure was for a W where they claimed 170!
See: http://tdu.to/i/53790

Mal Rowe - assuming that people in the early 1920s were much smaller.