New Generation Rollingstock

[somebody]

If there is no drivers cab there it is a bit of a problem.

Why? So long as there is a splittable coupler under the gangway it should be right.

How are they splitting ICEs?

What happens when you reach the end of the line?

[Gazza]

What happens when you reach the end of the line?

Lol, read the post I made at 07:50:43 PM and the post of HTGs i was quoting.

I wasn't talking about splitting sets in revenue service, I was taking about splitting sets so they fit in the current maintenance facilities (We only have a lifter for a 3 car set for instance)
I was merely asking HTG why you couldn't design a fixed 6 car set to be splittable in the middle for maintenance purpose.

[somebody]

Still be a pain.  Yes you can do it, but if you had indivisible sets you would want 6 car mtce facilities.

[petey3801]

Still be a pain.  Yes you can do it, but if you had indivisible sets you would want 6 car mtce facilities.

If the new gen units are going to be exclusively maintained at Wulkuraka (or wherever they build the new facility), then indivisible 6car sets should be fine. As long as there is the ability to block off certain cars (unlike the 160/260s) it should be fine too, although that would mean the guard would be in the wrong place if the rear 3 are locked (no huge problem though).
As for DOO ability, that'd be a given. The 160/260s are DOO capable (or are with very few mods). The earlier units would require more mods (220s shouldnt be too difficult, should just be a matter of software changes so the driver can see a few other pieces of info on the rear unit) but wouldn't be impossible. EMUs would be a royal pain in the backside as DOO though when a fault comes up..

[HappyTrainGuy]

Why cant the passageway between cars 3 & 4 be the point of splitting???

Depends on the mtce being undertaken at the time. It would be fine to split them but if they are like the newer SMU260/IMU160s then they would be a royal pain timewise with an additional workload and longer turn around times to seperate and rejoin with the sealable noise reduced walkthrough gangways as opposed to the ICE gangways that have couplers at the end for example.  The sheds for general mtce can handle 3 car (uses the 3 car bays), 6 car and traveltrain sets (uses the thru/longer bays) as the tracks are on stilts for elevation rather than being jacked up as is the case for changing bogies, compressors, major components etc under the trains.

If there is no drivers cab there it is a bit of a problem.

I don't see it as a big deal as there are plenty of divisible sets already in existence.

Lack of driving cabs are a mute point as the shed with the jacks (limited to 3 car sets) don't have any overheads as do the sheds for overhead work ie AC units/pantographs/CTTs (limited to 6 car sets).

If there is no drivers cab there it is a bit of a problem.

Why? So long as there is a splittable coupler under the gangway it should be right.

How are they splitting ICEs?

ICE trains operate revenue services with two power pairs meaning the first two and last two carriages do all the work with any trailer cars in the middle doing next to nothing. Power pairs can move around by themselves for shunting, the doors at the ends are lockable and if needed they can simply connect to an EMU at both ends to form an ICEEMU hybrid. ICE were designed for quick access at seperating them at the cost of increased noise and onboard seating (meant for TravelTrain duties) but they got around that by sealing both ends and combining the luggage/toilets with seperate sections to reduce the noise for passengers onboard.

As Petey said the new facilities were supposed to be designed for the NGR rollingstock so all work would be undertaken there.

[BrizCommuter]

I'll be blunt about this. For the QR system I think platform screen doors would be a complete w*nk. Brisbane commuters are used to dealing with unscreened platforms, and its not as if we're going to be getting to European Metro or Japanese levels of crush loading.

IMHO platform screen doors for CRR are completely unnecessary gold plating that will just require expensive but otherwise unnecessary equipment, and will unnecessarily restrict future rollingstock designs.

There, I've said it now!

Having said that, if you really need them, my employer will happily sell the necessary equipment at a huge mark up, and pocket $millions doing so. My current project involves dealing with platform screen door controllers, and a royal PITA they are too!

Apparently the Jubilee Line platform edge doors paid for themselves just in reducing litter collection and litter related delays.

Then as mentioned by others, add less people on tracks (suicide or pushed), improved smoke/fire prevention/management, improved HVAC. New mass transit railways should not be built without them!

[mufreight]

I'll be blunt about this. For the QR system I think platform screen doors would be a complete w*nk. Brisbane commuters are used to dealing with unscreened platforms, and its not as if we're going to be getting to European Metro or Japanese levels of crush loading.

IMHO platform screen doors for CRR are completely unnecessary gold plating that will just require expensive but otherwise unnecessary equipment, and will unnecessarily restrict future rollingstock designs.

There, I've said it now!

Having said that, if you really need them, my employer will happily sell the necessary equipment at a huge mark up, and pocket $millions doing so. My current project involves dealing with platform screen door controllers, and a royal PITA they are too!

Apparently the Jubilee Line platform edge doors paid for themselves just in reducing litter collection and litter related delays.

Then as mentioned by others, add less people on tracks (suicide or pushed), improved smoke/fire prevention/management, improved HVAC. New mass transit railways should not be built without them!

More bells and whistles, with the present passenger loading levels lets get the platforms raised for starters, experience has shown that platforms at carriage floor level not only improves the safety levels but has the more relevant to operations of reducing station dwell times by as much as 20%
There is no point fitting platform screen doors with platforms below carriage floor level.

[Gazza]

There is no point fitting platform screen doors with platforms below carriage floor level.

Well duh, CRR is going to have level platforms.

[mufreight]

There is no point fitting platform screen doors with platforms below carriage floor level.

Well duh, CRR is going to have level platforms.

Still little point if they are going to be the only stations so equiped on the system while the majority of platforms are not disability compliant in respect of platform level.
The expense of retrofitting the present fleet of rollingstock to be compatable with platform screen doors is simply not justified until such time as the operation of rollingstock can be assured to be appropriately equiped.
The operation of non automatic interfaced rollingstoch would effectively slow platform approach speeds slowing services and reducing line capacity.

[Gazza]

Still little point if they are going to be the only stations so equiped on the system

None of the other stations on the system are underground.

[BrizCommuter]

There is no point fitting platform screen doors with platforms below carriage floor level.

Well duh, CRR is going to have level platforms.

Still little point if they are going to be the only stations so equiped on the system while the majority of platforms are not disability compliant in respect of platform level.
The expense of retrofitting the present fleet of rollingstock to be compatable with platform screen doors is simply not justified until such time as the operation of rollingstock can be assured to be appropriately equiped.
The operation of non automatic interfaced rollingstoch would effectively slow platform approach speeds slowing services and reducing line capacity.

Given the lack of infrastructure at each end of CRR, I wouldn't be worried about platform screen doors reducing capacity!

[mufreight]

There is no point fitting platform screen doors with platforms below carriage floor level.

Well duh, CRR is going to have level platforms.

Still little point if they are going to be the only stations so equiped on the system while the majority of platforms are not disability compliant in respect of platform level.
The expense of retrofitting the present fleet of rollingstock to be compatable with platform screen doors is simply not justified until such time as the operation of rollingstock can be assured to be appropriately equiped.
The operation of non automatic interfaced rollingstoch would effectively slow platform approach speeds slowing services and reducing line capacity.

Given the lack of infrastructure at each end of CRR, I wouldn't be worried about platform screen doors reducing capacity!

Given existing circumstances it is still a chronic waste of resources made even more so with the deferment of the Wulkuraka facility which then has a flow on effect in the provision of more rolling stock and without more rollingstock the provision of more services becomes just so much foam   

[O_128]

There is no point fitting platform screen doors with platforms below carriage floor level.

Well duh, CRR is going to have level platforms.

Still little point if they are going to be the only stations so equiped on the system while the majority of platforms are not disability compliant in respect of platform level.
The expense of retrofitting the present fleet of rollingstock to be compatable with platform screen doors is simply not justified until such time as the operation of rollingstock can be assured to be appropriately equiped.
The operation of non automatic interfaced rollingstoch would effectively slow platform approach speeds slowing services and reducing line capacity.

Given the lack of infrastructure at each end of CRR, I wouldn't be worried about platform screen doors reducing capacity!

Not an issue really.

[colinw]

There is no point fitting platform screen doors with platforms below carriage floor level.

Well duh, CRR is going to have level platforms.

Still little point if they are going to be the only stations so equiped on the system while the majority of platforms are not disability compliant in respect of platform level.
The expense of retrofitting the present fleet of rollingstock to be compatable with platform screen doors is simply not justified until such time as the operation of rollingstock can be assured to be appropriately equiped.
The operation of non automatic interfaced rollingstoch would effectively slow platform approach speeds slowing services and reducing line capacity.

Its actually quite practical to have the trains to be running on full auto pilot say from either end of the tunnel. Both new and older trains can be readily retrofitted at minimal cost and the advantages of this include making platform doors more practical and running closer headways, such as 2min. Drivers could then have their non main meal breaks on the go.

Whatever gives you the idea that retrofitting ATO (or at least Auto-Stop to align with PSDs) & Platform Screen Door communication can be done at minimal cost?  These systems are far from cheap!

Incidentally, SEQ is going to be ETCS level 2, which is an interesting choice given that ATO and ETCS generally don't mix. I'm not aware of any ATO + ETCS systems operating yet, although there's nothing about ETCS that would preclude automatic operation. The vast majority of ATO systems worldwide are proprietary variants of CBTC, which is not (yet) standardised although standards are emerging.

The reason I mention it is that if we go for PSDs in CRR, it means we'll almost certainly end up with the need to do precision stops for door alignment with manually driven trains.

[HappyTrainGuy]

You'd have a field day with the EMU systems and if a fault comes up.... hahahaha.

[colinw]

The thought of retrofitting ATP of any kind to the EMUs makes me cringe. We've just finished installing WESTECT ATP on the ICEs, and that was bad enough from what I've heard.

I doubt the EMUs will ever see an ATP or ETCS installation.

IMUs and beyond are fine, as much of the wiring was pre-installed in Maryborough when they were built. EMUs - forget it. From what I've heard even fitting the cubicle in would be troublesome, and probably involve some substantial & expensive redesigning to break the gear into two smaller cubicles.

Ideally the rollout of ETCS level 2 for SEQ will align with EMU replacement with NGR. The NGR can then be procured from a supplier like CAF who are accustomed to supplying trains pre-installed with ETCS equipment. Retrofitting the older trains (IMU, SMU 220 & beyond) would be a separate contract.

Still leaves open the issue of how to deal with the interface between the ETCS area and the existing proprietary ATP territory north of Caboolture & west of Ipswich, but that is an issue for another thread.

[ozbob]

EMUs are going to be banished to the Ferny Grove line ...   

[colinw]

EMUs are going to be banished to the Ferny Grove line ...   

... but only after Campbell has personally ensured that the nasty ALP maroon seat fabric has been replaced with LNP blue. This will be funded by cancelling a few more school music competitions & other cultural activities the LNP deem to be unnecessary.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Hahaha. Maybe go back to the 90's green fabric to spice things up a bit

[SteelPan]

1) compatibility limited to emergencies etc - by the time the "next generation" hits the rails, it'll be time to move on from the old EMU technologies - great unit they are (were).
3) way powerful aircon capacity and likewise a public address system with real grunt.
4) as suggested above, destination boards on the sides of trains near doors - kinda strange we've not seen these already.  (love the above shot of the LA system - LA is a good study of how a car crazy big city embraced rail successfully).
5) BIG display signage on front of trains.
6) 2 doors per side is fine, but maybe a little wider is the trick.
7) majority side-on style seating - MAROON is an OK colour with me.
8 ) Internal destination boards displaying next station signs, like on GC services.
9) AGREE those proposed "platform doors" for the CRR are stupid - the whole atmosphere of an underground comes from that wind rush!    only in Qld would people rant on about the "danger" and probably that the ol devil might get em down there!
10) maybe increase seating cushioning a bit and do away with carpeted floors, which always strikes me as an overkill for suburban type services.

[somebody]

Agree with the wider doors, regardless of how many there are.  Double flow is not achieved reliably.

[mufreight]

1) compatibility limited to emergencies etc - by the time the "next generation" hits the rails, it'll be time to move on from the old EMU technologies - great unit they are (were).

They have already moved on from the older technology of the EMU sets and at the present time although it is mechaniaclly possible for an EMU to operate in multiple with a 100 or 200 series set there are a number of differences that make this not a practical option and no suggestion is being made that the NGR sets should be backward compatabile with the EMU or the 100 or 200 series rollingstock.
There are a number of operating advantages in the NGR sets being able to MU with the 160 and 260 series sets.
The NGR sets can be equiped with such additional features as may be required as an overlay over the same basic control systems as the 160 and 260 series sets using more technologicaly advanced components.

As for the argument about the sets being single ended if built as divisible six car sets and potential operation problems bear in mind that the current fleet uses 20 single ended sets which are operated interchangeability with the rest of the EMU sets.
In terms of in service reliability it is enhanced by the six car sets being comprised by two three car sets as in the event of failure of a unit the other three cars should still be operable to pull or propel the failed set clear out of traffic and by maintaining the three car set configeration although comprised by single ended sets operated back to back existing maintenance facilities can continue to be used to maintain all units in the fleet.

The NSW experience has shown that the fitout for longer distance travel needs to be different to that for the shorter services and while a train set fitted out for longer (time wise) services can be used on the shorter commuter services capacity is sacrificed and for longer services there is a need for maximum seating, luggage facilities and toilets.  Mechanically due to the higher speeds involved in the longer services there are advantages in for instance different traction motor gearing ratios to allower higher operating speeds.

With platform raised to carriage floor heights station dwell times are significantly reduced and due to the nature of the variey and length of the types of services operated on the Brisbane network additional doors would have little relative benefit and would add a weight penalty to each carriage.

DOO is only a matter of time but will require a considerable upgrade to on board signalling and train protection systems and the provision of a means of driver supervision of platforms while loading, given the present configeration of many existing platforms although possible difficult and expensive   

[mufreight]

Experience OS in recent years would indicate that the only reason you have the capacity to spilt a set is purely for operational reasons, ie you want to run more smaller trains. I'm using Dubai, Singapore, new trains to Sydney and Germany as an example here.

Think about it, say one 3 car set fails, unless its close to BH, its unlikely to have the time to get back to there or where ever spare sets are stored of that type and get back into peak before the end of that peak. Modern EMU's are made in such a way (or can be) that system wise they are full of redundency and there are very few core bits to fail making them more reliable than previusly. Also not having a 3+3 arrangement reduces the number of bits that can fail. This includes having single ended 3 car sets with walkway between the two.

Horses for courses, Brisbane is not Dubi, Singapore, Sydney or Germany, different operating pattens and system network needs and one size definately does not fit all.

MOD EDIT: fix quotes!

[HappyTrainGuy]

Unrealiable fixed 6 car sets aren't the problem. The only reason 3 car sets are still running in Queensland are because that's how the whole network is designed around. Disabled boarding/higher security - CCTV/lighting are all in the middle of the platform. When it comes to running 3 car services they have their own reasons. The Rosewood line runs a 3 car set which is acceptable as its a shuttle to Ipswich. Some 3 car sets run just before the height and return when it drops off (so more 6 car sets can run more often during the height of peak) or they just don't have a partner to pair up with (As a result of the lack of total rollingstock/mtce/refurbs/timetables etc which will be really interesting when Springfield/Kippa Ring come online along with the timetable modifications for the rest of the network).

Having fixed six car sets also isn't a cheap option to set up. At Mayne only the general mtce/overhead work sheds can accept 6 car trains and even then not all of the roads accept 6 cars and that's provided they have the parts/equipment/requirements to service them. All that does is increase the work load at Mayne along with increasing the turnaround times if they have to constantly be splitting them to change parts under the train, replacing bogies, using the wheel lathe etc. Simply extending those sheds aren't an option as they then have limited space for storing/accessing/preparing those parts or they would simply block junctions/access roads, pathways and stabling roads. And even if they do go to fixed 6 car sets that locks in the future expansion. One of the reasons for planned 9 car sets (on selected lines with CRR/CCR2-Trouts road) was to reduce the frequency needed without upgrading the signaling, creating problems futher towards/in the city, building additional tracks/platforms/bridges/property resumptions. Take the Caboolture line problems for example. To increase capacity to the north a fifth track City-Northgate and quad Northgate-Petrie would be extremly costly. Not including the inner city leg despite there being space for track between the stations Northgate-Strathpine its still going to cost a bucket load when you have to replace the bridges at Virginia and Zillmere, property resumptions at Zillmere, big works at Virginia, a little tight through Sunshine, Geebung would have property resumptions along with losing the park and ride, tight under the bridge prior to Bald Hills when all that money could be put towards the Trouts road corridor which would have more capacity, less design issues, less service interuptions to a key corridor and faster travel times than adding more tracks to an existing corridor.

[somebody]

I accept that there are issues with Mayne and fixed 6 car sets, but I was on the understanding that the maintenance for the NGR would be somewhere else.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Part of the NGR contract is indeed a new mtce facility controlled and operated by a third party. Wulkuraka was the intended facility...... but with Wulkuraka being shelved for the moment and at 300million to build it with the current state debt.... Who knows what's going to happen for cost cutting. Anyway the NGR is supposed to be designed for 3 car sets.

[Stillwater]

Mufreight, could you point to an example of a suitable long-distance, inter-urban, unit in service elsewhere that would suit the bill?  Trains that V/Line uses for the Ballarat and Bendigo runs are impressive.  What does WA use, given their gauge there.

[mufreight]

Mufreight, could you point to an example of a suitable long-distance, inter-urban, unit in service elsewhere that would suit the bill?  Trains that V/Line uses for the Ballarat and Bendigo runs are impressive.  What does WA use, given their gauge there.

Queensland had a unique problem with the requirements of commuter rollingstock.
There are two seperate requirements that govern the layout of passenger rollingstock. 
Because of the length of commuter travel journeys in normal service there is a requirement for maximum seating capacity as a consequence of the efficent through routing of services and the overall travel time of trips, such as Ipswich to Caboolture.
The operation of the interurban services such as Airport to Varsity Lakes or to Nambour and Gympie North requires a different carriage fit out and the provision of luggage space and toilets.
For the commuter level services Beenleigh, Cleveland, Rosewood, Richlands, Ferny Grove, Caboolture and Shorncliffe services the layout of the 260 series SMU units is quite practical but there is a need for sets of a different configeration, the 160 series IMU sets serve the purpose but fall short when comparison is made with the ICE sets which fail in the area of disability access.
As to equipment currently in use in this country operating on narrow gauge although DMU sets the Australind set in WA comes the closest to fulfilling that need with the exception of the wider doors and their positioning.
These sets are effectively a more compact version of the NSW Explorer sets but unfortunately even the Australind set exceeds the QR loading gauge.
On the basis of horses for courses QR is faced with the definate need for two seperate configurations of rollingstock and there is no practical compromise option for both sets of requirements and the needs of passengers.
As presently configured an IMU can substitute for and EMU or SMU in commuter service without any problems other than a loss of crush loading capacity of perhaps 25/30 passengers but the substitution of an IMU or ICE set for the longer haul commute services causes problems due to the lack of toilet facilities and luggage space.

[mufreight]

Seems like the NGR sets might be quite a while away, rumor (from a generaly reliable source) says that the Newman razor gang has decided that they can be deferred for a few years as the growth in passenger numbers has slowed.

[somebody]

Unsurprising, but bad news none the less.

[somebody]

Moment of truth is towards 2019 when the first of teh EMU's hit 40.

Does anything happen then?  Red rattlers lasted 60+ years.

[ozbob]

Some of the Tait's in Melbourne made > 60 years.

1079 was built in 1956,  hope yet ...      

[SurfRail]

I'm still trying to understand why the ICE sets seem to have less reliability though.

I had always thought it was a combination of limited fleet and parts, and running them other than for what they were intended.  I expect if you ran IMU 100s exclusively on the Ferny Grove and Cleveland lines you would have similar issues over time.

[somebody]

Stopping far more frequently than what it was designed to do on Caboolture-GYN.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The IMU160's won't have any problems with running the Ferny Grove line as they are the exact same design as the SMU260's. That being said plenty have broken their gearboxes doing that.

All ICE sets are still used. They might be based similar to an EMU but they were designed for two very different types of running. One was for stop/start surburban usage. The other for coasting and maintaining speed over a prolonged longer distance. The gearing is one issue. EMUs struggle to go faster than 105kph when flat out on 135kw traction motors while ICE will top out at 130kph on the same motors. The weight difference doesn't help aswell with a 6 car EMU weighting ~235t compared to the ICE weighting in around 266t (heavier than 6 car IMUs). Since they went from TravelTrain duties to CityTrain duties there is now a higher passenger load weight. There are a few bugs with the doors but most of them have been resolved. Mtce/CityTrain utilisation (renting to QRN/driver training etc) has also been relaxed as they can easily be subbed with an IMU or another ICE depending on the workload.

[somebody]

I think the GYN should stop CAB-Landsborough-Nambour, with feeders serving the other stations.  The other stations have a low level of usage anyway.

[Arnz]

Beerwah has about as much patronage as Nambour at various times (including Aust Zoo patronage). 

Besides, most of the pax get off the Glasshouse-Beerwah-Landsborough areas, with Landsborough carrying 40% of the total 1100+ peak period pax.

[somebody]

Nambour's another eighth or so.

I could accept adding Beerwah and Glass House.  Other stations are a fair way behind.

[Gazza]

Horses for courses, Brisbane is not Dubi, Singapore, Sydney or Germany, different operating pattens and system network needs and one size definately does not fit all.

MOD EDIT: fix quotes!

What Brisbane specific conditions were you thinking of that don't apply in Dubai, Singapore, Sydney, Germany etc?

[#Metro]

Just back from Melbourne, my, what a pieces of ancient antiquity we have on our system!

Brand new V/Locity trains, very quiet, VERY slick and comfy inside and actually VERY FREQUENT. I think every time I went on a METRO train, a V/Locity flew past. There seems to be a lot of service to country victoria. Services are hourly to Traralgon.

Meanwhile, we struggle with ancient pyramid-era rolling stock to Sunshine Coast, service doesn't even go where the people are and single track...