On 13/6/19 6:19 am, Prescott wrote:
> The double decker enthusiasts love quoting the manufacturer's maximum

> capacity, but in reality in daily service you can never fill the

> trains to that capacity because you couldn't exchange passengers on a

> full train without massive dwells at stops to enable people plugged up

> in the gondolas to get to the doors through the blockage in the

> vestibule and then for more people to board. The only time you see a

> full double decker is on a special event service where they all board

> at one end of the line and all disembark at once at the other (e.g.

> Olympic games).

You need to be in Sydney in the peaks more.

My are trains regularly full to standing in BOTH decks. And that's a 10
minute frequency all stops service with close station spacings better
suited to 'metro' rollingstock.

The ESR regularly does what is apparently impossible - running 8 car
deckers at 2.5 minute frequency with people standing on both decks.

> Sydney is being planned away from a tidal flow city, with activity

> (employment, education etc) centres dispersed across the Sydney basin.

> Sydney always was more decentralised than Melbourne, now it is

> becoming more so in a major way.

Decentralisation works against fixed PT big time.  Expensive fixed
infrastructure works best with a concentrated centre. A poly-centric
city is a car dependent city.

And all these assumptions planners are making about 'people will live
near their work' assume, I gather, that only one person's career in the
household is important and the other will take a hit and take a job
below their ability that happens to be local to their partners job. I
know a lot of house holds one of the couple does sacrifice their career
(usually the women), but not all are willing to make that sacrifice. The
city should not be planned around the assumption that one half of a
couple has to sacrifice their well-being.

RAPT are currently re-signalling RER-A to enable full automatic
operation - the SACEM system does not drive the train, it provides speed
supervision and 'suggestions' to the driver who is still fully
controlling power and braking.  The main gain from it is that it's a
'distance to go' moving block system. The auto-driver circuit was never
installed to avoid industrial relations problems. SACEM is now obsolete
and had to be replaced anyway.