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.
- yes a typo!
However, the earliest plan I have seen with a 'crush load' figure was for a W where they claimed 170!
Mal Rowe - assuming that people in the early 1920s were much smaller.