Re: R/R1 and P/O capacity
  Mal Rowe

On 10/10/2017 9:46 PM, Tony Gallowayarg@... [TramsDownUnder] wrote:
> 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.


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.

Either Melbourne commuters were statistically smaller or the seating layout of the SW6 allowed more standing room.  The lack of end platforms may also have given more space.  I wonder if the official R class crush loads included standees on the end platforms?

I have attached a plan of the initial SW6 design - which had four double tip-over seats in each saloon.  This choice may well have been influenced by the R design.
Later SW6s replaced the tip-over seats with fixed seats, making space for the longitudinal seats just inside the saloons to become triple seats and thus increase seated capacity from 48 to 52 without changing the rated crush load.
Knowledgeable fans always liked the SW6s with tip-over seats.
I think all were converted to fixed seating over time.

One feature of the R and R1 design that Melbourne would have been wise to adopt was the side windows - the sliding plate glass in Sydney is a much better and more reliable design than Melbourne's 'half drop' windows in theSW6s and later Ws.

Mal Rowe in a city that was very proud of the SW6 design

Show full size
SW6-plan tipover-seats MMTB  |  1650W x 888H  | 630.56 KB |  Photo details