Forget the phrase 'hung up'. I have done the measurement and the
mathematics, and Tony hasn't. The dwell time is IRRELEVANT, as I have
posted many times. Unlike Tony and the rest of the old-wives-tales
brigade, I have done the measurements.
Double deck provides more passengers per track per hour than single deck.
The need is capacity, not speed. Melbourne's misnamed 'high-capacity'
trains simply aren't, and have needed even more engineering than a
double-deck solution would have required.
In a Melbourne and Sydney context, all mezzanines could have had a
double-leaf door plus a single-leaf door. Even without that, the maximum
time needed for passenger flow which I recorded at any of Sydney's horror
stations in peak periods was 70 s. That does NOT mean that every stop
needs 70 s. With proper signalling, that allows headways of 120 s, 30 tph,
with double deck.
The short-sighted solution has been deliberately boring tunnels not to hold
the Bradfield profile.
The whole Sydney 'metro' project was pushed through with saturation
propaganda and lies, as is the Melbourne 'metro'. Politicians are obsessed
with the word 'metro', without knowing what one is, what one does, or the
sort of urban geography for which they are suitable. Brisbane is even
succeeding in debasing the term by calling a busway a 'metro'.
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 6:41:34 AM UTC+10, Prescott wrote:
> ...there are a lot of older enthusiasts who are hung up on double