I've already had a preview riding trains in Perth and I find that
configuration perfectly comfortable, even on the longest lines to Mandurah
(50 minutes from the city) and Butler (35 minutes from the city). Never
heard anybody in Perth complaining about it either.

Re seating, we've been over this a billion times before and its becoming
tedious: the comparison should be based on seats per hour, not trainset vs
trainset. When the type of train with less seats can deliver many more
services than the trains with more, the difference in seats per hour is
relatively little.

That argument also rings a little hollow when I see people regularly
standing for a whole 1.5 hour journey between Wollongong and Sydney (over a
distance little longer than the Mandurah line). Nobody will be standing for
anything remotely like that length of time on metro trains.

Tony P

On Friday, 22 March 2019 09:20:22 UTC+11, Matthew Geier wrote:
>

> On 22/3/19 9:11 am, Prescott wrote:

> > I've no doubt that better performance can be wrung out of the double

> > decks but the fact is that no high capacity mass transit railway in

> > the world uses them for good reason. Even the much discussed RER Line

> > A in Paris struggles to throughput more than 25 trains and hour and

> > that's with automated driving, the attendant concentrating on the

> > doors/dwells and three doors per side per car. The Sydney double decks

> > also won't fill properly because of their lack of doors and

> > unwillingness of people to move away from the doors because they don't

> > want to get trapped inside when they want to get out. Human nature

> > defies theory!

>

>

> So your answer is to use trains that are uncomfortable to ride and stop

> people from switching to using their own cars by making sure there is no

> where to park them or the road are deliberately built with pinch points

> to discourage car use ?

>

> This fixation on high standee trains for commuting is a gift to the toll

> road operators IMHO.

>

>

>