Re: R/R1 and P/O capacity
  Hal Cain

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Mal Rowemal.rowe@...
[TramsDownUnder] TramsDownUnder@...> wrote:



> 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.


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


> 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.


SW6s from 890 reverted to the seating plan of the W5s, which was as you

Interesting that on the plan, the controller shown appears to be of the
panhandle type of the W5s. In fact they were built with MMTB RC2 controls
(the later W5s had RC1 controls.

Hal Cain