Trains and doors- reduce dwell times

[#Metro]

Should future orders of trains be for trains with 3 doors per carriage?

[somebody]

It would be better and more effective to just have the size of the doors increased to allow for double flow (i.e. two people getting on/off at the same time).

[#Metro]

Yes, ok, I am sure that can definitely be recommended to QR as part of the list of potential options. I feel it is important that the list of ideas go out now, so that future train orders can be incorporated into the train designs.

[mufreight]

We have been down this path before, the three doors idea was overwhelmingly rejected then and nothing has changed since, the current rollingstock doors allow two people to enter or exit at once, if you wish to reduce dwell times a 20% to 25% reduction in passenger loading times can be achieved by raising platforms to carriage entry floor height.
Too simple a solution for a government that rebuilds stations with rebuilt platforms still at the 1940 platform level height and builds new platforms also at that low height..  WHY?

[ozbob]

If I am not mistaken, a decision as already been made by QR and others to stay with the present door arrangements.  It is do with ensuring all trains are compatible with station screens (CRR stations) as I understand it. 

[somebody]

the current rollingstock doors allow two people to enter or exit at once,

Doesn't seem to work out in practice.  Imagine putting a pole in the middle of the doorway, a la CityRail second generation rolling stock.

[mufreight]

the current rollingstock doors allow two people to enter or exit at once,

Doesn't seem to work out in practice.  Imagine putting a pole in the middle of the doorway, a la CityRail second generation rolling stock.

The theory is that it divides the flow, proof no doubt that human nature does not necessicarly follow theory.

[somebody]

My point was that the space would be quite narrow if there was a pole there.  Hence I suggest that the doors be wider to achieve real double flow, which I say is not achieved now.

When the tangaras came out they tried having a pole at the 1/3 position on the same size doors.  That one didn't work.  It's still double flow on a Tangara.  Triple flow might be achievable for them with 10-20% wider doors.

[Gazza]

Too simple a solution for a government that rebuilds stations with rebuilt platforms still at the 1940 platform level height and builds new platforms also at that low height..  WHY?

Because if the curve is too great the platform needs to be low or you end up with an excessive horizontal gap like #6 at Central.

[BrizCommuter]

If I am not mistaken, a decision as already been made by QR and others to stay with the present door arrangements.  It is do with ensuring all trains are compatible with station screens (CRR stations) as I understand it. 

Really?

It is possible to have 2 and 4, or 2 and 3 door trains using the same set of platform edge doors. The former was mentioned in the Inner City Rail Capacity Study.

Japan Rail are currently installing platform edge gates that can cope with 3 and 4 car trains on the same platform.
http://www.asahi.com/kansai/travel/news/OSK201101070001.html

Too hard for Queensland?

[mufreight]

Too simple a solution for a government that rebuilds stations with rebuilt platforms still at the 1940 platform level height and builds new platforms also at that low height..  WHY?

Because if the curve is too great the platform needs to be low or you end up with an excessive horizontal gap like #6 at Central.

The horozontal gap on platform 6 at Central is considerably less than that at many stations with low level platforms, a horozontal gap of 100mm is acceptable and as the doorways of the carriages have an extender plate that maximum gap of 100mm poses no clearence problems.
If necessicary by having a platform height that is 50mm below carriage entry height allows that gap to be reduced even further due to the consistency of carriage floor height above rail head possible with air suspensions systems regardless of load.

[ozbob]

Too hard for Queensland?

Apparently, we raised three door sets at the rollingstock focus group as well.   With CRR being pushed further and further back maybe new sub sets could well have three doors.  Screens can be adapted as you have suggested.

[frereOP]

Should future orders of trains be for trains with 3 doors per carriage?

I support it but it is not possible given that the CRR stations will have platform doors (like King George Square Bus Station.  The position and location of doors on trains must match exactly those on the trains and if we moved to 3 or 4 doors per side then 2-door carriages could not be used on the new line and we would need a complete new set of rolling stock for that line.

2 doors per side on a carriage for an inner suburban network that is about 25m long was always a dumb idea.  Most metro/subway systems in the world have 3 or more doors per side and parallel seating which minimises loading and unloading times, and maximises carrying capacity.

[#Metro]

I support it but it is not possible given that the CRR stations will have platform doors (like King George Square Bus Station.  The position and location of doors on trains must match exactly those on the trains and if we moved to 3 or 4 doors per side then 2-door carriages could not be used on the new line and we would need a complete new set of rolling stock for that line.

I don't know. How many doors will a CRR train carriage have? If the answer is 4, then put 4 doors in. If the answer is 3 put 3 doors in. Maybe they don't know yet.

2 doors per side on a carriage for an inner suburban network that is about 25m long was always a dumb idea.  Most metro/subway systems in the world have 3 or more doors per side and parallel seating which minimises loading and unloading times, and maximises carrying capacity.

Yes, the rollingstock must evolve. Nice to have lots of seating, few doors etc when it was a country town sort of service. Unless we are going to have something like San Fransisco BART build in Brisbane, I would suggest removing seats. I'd rather stand than be forced to wait a good 15 minutes to get a seat or until the next train came along. The metro systems have less seats.

[BrizCommuter]

Should future orders of trains be for trains with 3 doors per carriage?

I support it but it is not possible given that the CRR stations will have platform doors (like King George Square Bus Station.  The position and location of doors on trains must match exactly those on the trains and if we moved to 3 or 4 doors per side then 2-door carriages could not be used on the new line and we would need a complete new set of rolling stock for that line.

2 doors per side on a carriage for an inner suburban network that is about 25m long was always a dumb idea.  Most metro/subway systems in the world have 3 or more doors per side and parallel seating which minimises loading and unloading times, and maximises carrying capacity.

Please read my last post. It is possible to have trains with different numbers of doors using the same set of platform edge doors. However, it helps if a 3 door train has the 2 outer doors in the same locations, and for 4 doors, the extra doors must be placed at 50% of the distance between the 2 doors (2 and 4 door trains would have slightly different stopping locations) - there is a diagram showing how this works in the Inner City Rail Capacity Study.

[#Metro]

The killer question: how many extra train paths would we gain from trains that would have extra doors.

[somebody]

The killer question: how many extra train paths would we gain from trains that would have extra doors.

This would have more effect on the mains than the suburbans.  The bifurcation on the suburbans should make dwell time less of a factor there.

[Gazza]

The horozontal gap on platform 6 at Central is considerably less than that at many stations with low level platforms, a horozontal gap of 100mm is acceptable

Not really....100mm is still wide enough for the front wheel of a wheelchair to drop fully into, feet etc.

[mufreight]

The horozontal gap on platform 6 at Central is considerably less than that at many stations with low level platforms, a horozontal gap of 100mm is acceptable

Not really....100mm is still wide enough for the front wheel of a wheelchair to drop fully into, feet etc.

A bad case of the nanny state again, platform to carriage clearance in other states is generaly some 11.25 to 12.5 cm without the problems that you envisage in Sydney/Melbourne/Adelade and Perth.
Yet at the same time we have vertical gaps exceeding 35 cm combined with horozonral gaps in some locations of 12.5 cm which you apparently have no concerns with.
Obviously from your comment the government here and you feel a greater need to protect users against any real or perceived possibility of harm that is not the case elsewhere and then only in selected locations to avoid the expenditure necessicary for the approach to be consistent.
The trams in Melbourne have by the introduction of tram floor level stops reduced dwell times by better than 20%, oh in case you are interested the gap between tram and stop platform is some 12.5 cm.

[Fares_Fair]

Not that this is my area of expertise but ... a wheelchair would never be parallel to the train it is about to board, would it ?
It needs to be perpendicular for the ramps (if needed) or if coming from behind the yellow line , also perpendicular to the train, I can't see that it would be a problem.

What does a wheelchair user think ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

Not that this is my area of expertise but ... a wheelchair would never be parallel to the train it is about to board, would it ?

Have a look at a wheelchair..... See how the castors at the front would drop straight into a gap:


http://www.ilcnsw.asn.au/images/item_images/4333036.jpg?1289976432


Mufreight, my opinion is that platform raising should be done mostly to benefit wheelchair users since it allows them to board without help. I'm not sure that it's worth raising them to reduce dwell times (yet) , except perhaps at very busy stations that could do with the time saving.
If the platform is curved, then

Yet at the same time we have vertical gaps exceeding 35 cm combined with horozonral (sic) gaps in some locations of 12.5 cm which you apparently have no concerns with.

Just because I didn't spell it out to you in 10ft high letters in my last post doesn't mean I'm not concerned with it.

We're in a situation where there's a number of stations still not even wheelchair accessible, so platform heights are further down the list of things to fix up. Obviously when they do a station overhaul these things should be fixed up (Where geometrically possible). But the fact is it's expensive to rectify since everything on the platform has to be lifted up too, and becomes difficult too if there is an existing building on the platform.

I think in new constructions, make them fully level when the platform is straight, or under 190mm step up in the case of curved platforms.

Tram platforms are a different kettle of fish...Besides being much shorter, level boarding is easier to provide since they aren't curved.

[mufreight]

All stations can benefit from reduced dwell times.
Platform 3 at Oxley was a new construction with less curvature than platform 6 at Central was built to the same height as the old platforms.
At Darra platforms 2 and 3 were a total rebuild following a total demolition of all structures again the curvature of the platform was similar to that at Central were rebuilt to the old steam era platform height.
The argument that you pose with regard to wheelchair access, do wheelchairs in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth have some special device included that prevents them dropping into the gap which is up to 5cm wider than that at Central.   

[Fares_Fair]

Not that this is my area of expertise but ... a wheelchair would never be parallel to the train it is about to board, would it ?

Have a look at a wheelchair..... See how the castors at the front would drop straight into a gap:


http://www.ilcnsw.asn.au/images/item_images/4333036.jpg?1289976432


Mufreight, my opinion is that platform raising should be done mostly to benefit wheelchair users since it allows them to board without help. I'm not sure that it's worth raising them to reduce dwell times (yet) , except perhaps at very busy stations that could do with the time saving.
If the platform is curved, then

Yet at the same time we have vertical gaps exceeding 35 cm combined with horozonral (sic) gaps in some locations of 12.5 cm which you apparently have no concerns with.

Just because I didn't spell it out to you in 10ft high letters in my last post doesn't mean I'm not concerned with it.

We're in a situation where there's a number of stations still not even wheelchair accessible, so platform heights are further down the list of things to fix up. Obviously when they do a station overhaul these things should be fixed up (Where geometrically possible). But the fact is it's expensive to rectify since everything on the platform has to be lifted up too, and becomes difficult too if there is an existing building on the platform.

I think in new constructions, make them fully level when the platform is straight, or under 190mm step up in the case of curved platforms.

Tram platforms are a different kettle of fish...Besides being much shorter, level boarding is easier to provide since they aren't curved.

From the look of those tiny wheels in the picture, no gap would be small enough.
How about making wheelchairs with larger front wheels instead ?

My understanding is that they use the ramps anyway, is that not the case for wheelchair access ?
Again, does any wheelchair user want to contribute to this thread ? their point of view being most weighty IMHO.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[#Metro]

I hope that all new stations that are ever built from this day forward have level boarding and no curve.

[Gazza]

Platform 3 at Oxley was a new construction with less curvature than platform 6 at Central was built to the same height as the old platforms.
At Darra platforms 2 and 3 were a total rebuild following a total demolition of all structures again the curvature of the platform was similar to that at Central were rebuilt to the old steam era platform height.

But those platforms are curved.

Thing, I don't think they'd do any curved platforms. I think #6 Central is a one off, and I doubt they'd try to repeat it.

Think of it this way....What about at Park Road where there is a platform nobody can use because the curvature is too great. Obviously its a not just a question of "Is there a curve or not" but rather "how tight is the curve.
I imagine that you could begin to plot curves of a straight line against the various curve radii. And figure out the exact curve radii where a horizontal platform becomes possible....Thing is, you couldn't have much of a curve at all. Trains carriages are tens of meters long, whilst gaps are measured in centimeters, so even a small change in radius (hard to see by eye) is going to cause the gap to increase exponentially.

All stations can benefit from reduced dwell times.

Of course, but the way our network is at the moment there are a probably heap of other things they could be doing to improve efficiency before delving into the 'finer' stuff like this.

The argument that you pose with regard to wheelchair access, do wheelchairs in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth have some special device included that prevents them dropping into the gap which is up to 5cm wider than that at Central.

In these other cites are these 'legacy' platforms with wide gaps, or new constructions?

[somebody]

All stations can benefit from reduced dwell times.

You make a good point here.

In Sydney (and apparently Melbourne) a ramp is required for a wheelchair.  Don't think there are any exceptions.

[mufreight]

But those platforms are curved.
Thing, I don't think they'd do any curved platforms. I think #6 Central is a one off, and I doubt they'd try to repeat it.
In these other cites are these 'legacy' platforms with wide gaps, or new constructions?

Platforms 5 & 6 at Central even with the curve have sufficent clearance to operate overdimension locos (2800 class) and freight services through the platform without restriction, PN intermodial services have operated through there as well as QR services so why would they not be able to repeat it elsewhere.

Some of the platforms refered to on other systems are new constructions, yes it would be ideal if all new stations should be constructed with a straight platform but the curvature at Oxley and Darra is no greater than that at Central so there is no credible reason for their being built at the low height.
Indooroopilly could and should have been raised in reconstruction, the curvature there is greater but the platforms there could have been raised to reduce the vertical step on the section of curve and raised to full height  as the curve eases as has been done with platforms 8 and 9 at Roma Street.  

[Gazza]

it would be ideal if all new stations should be constructed with a straight platform but the curvature at Oxley and Darra is no greater than that at Central so there is no credible reason for their being built at the low height.

I went and had a look at the design rules. Boarding can occur without assistance if the gap is narrower than 40mm, or lower than 15mm ( http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2005B01059/Html/Text#para5.458 )

The way I see it, its sort of like the "island versus side platform" debate, both have their pros and cons...

When its low level, you introduce a step up, when its high level, you introduce a gap. Just because you prefer level boarding with a gap doesn't mean all user groups have that preference. A parent with a young child might prefer there not to be a gap for instance. So obviously somewhere along the line they must've decided when to use a particular solution, and the impression that I have is that they would rather not have gaps at all, hence retaining low level platforms in some reconstructions..

So with Indro, Darra and Oxley, they probably didn't bother with a level platform since it wouldn't eliminate the need for the guard to use a ramp (Gap greater than 40mm inevitably). I'm not sure if boarding times even came into the decision.

Some of the platforms refered to on other systems are new constructions

Which ones? You seem to be able to cite specific examples given you had given exact dimensions in earlier posts.

Also, with respect to Melbourne tram boarding times...What is the 20% measured against? Melbourne has both high and low level trams, and high and low level stops.

Is the 20% improvement measured between a low tram at a low stop, compared to a low tram at a high stop.

I ask this because it would be quite easy for them to puff up the figures if they were comparing a high tram at  low stop with a low tram at a high stop (Since that would offer the most dramatic improvement)

Getting back to the topic for a sec:

support it but it is not possible given that the CRR stations will have platform doors (like King George Square Bus Station.  The position and location of doors on trains must match exactly those on the trains and if we moved to 3 or 4 doors per side then 2-door carriages could not be used on the new line and we would need a complete new set of rolling stock for that line.

2 doors per side on a carriage for an inner suburban network that is about 25m long was always a dumb idea.  Most metro/subway systems in the world have 3 or more doors per side and parallel seating which minimises loading and unloading times, and maximises carrying capacity.

Don't follow.
Lets say they moved to 3 doors per car.
All you would have to do is then build the CRR stations with 18 doors per platform:

D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D


For the following O=open and X=Closed

When 3 door trains pull up it would be like this:

O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

When a 2 door (current) train pulls up it would look like this.

O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O

The system would be able to detect what sort of train was pulled up at the platform.
So why "it is not possible"?

[#Metro]

Don't follow.
Lets say they moved to 3 doors per car.
All you would have to do is then build the CRR stations with 18 doors per platform:

D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D


For the following O=open and X=Closed

When 3 door trains pull up it would be like this:

O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

When a 2 door (current) train pulls up it would look like this.

O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O

The system would be able to detect what sort of train was pulled up at the platform.
So why "it is not possible"?

What an insight. Unfortunately, I agree with FrereOP, this is Queensland, we can't even make a door shut. Lol

[frereOP]

support it but it is not possible given that the CRR stations will have platform doors (like King George Square Bus Station.  The position and location of doors on trains must match exactly those on the trains and if we moved to 3 or 4 doors per side then 2-door carriages could not be used on the new line and we would need a complete new set of rolling stock for that line.

2 doors per side on a carriage for an inner suburban network that is about 25m long was always a dumb idea.  Most metro/subway systems in the world have 3 or more doors per side and parallel seating which minimises loading and unloading times, and maximises carrying capacity.

Don't follow.
Lets say they moved to 3 doors per car.
All you would have to do is then build the CRR stations with 18 doors per platform:

D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D


For the following O=open and X=Closed

When 3 door trains pull up it would be like this:

O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

When a 2 door (current) train pulls up it would look like this.

O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O-O-X-O

The system would be able to detect what sort of train was pulled up at the platform.
So why "it is not possible"?

Of course something like this is possible but it is also ridiculous because that isn't the way these kinds of stations work.  Imagine you are lined up on the platform waiting to get on only to find its a two door train and the door you are at isn't going to open.  You then have to move to another door which is already congested, thereby defeating the whole purpose of the multi-door system, which is designed to unload and load passengers as quicky as possible.  Hence, you might as well not bother.

[Gazza]

^Its no different to the way they deal with 3 car trains...People are able to arrange themselves in order to actually board the train.

I could imagine an announcement like this.

"The train arriving on platform 1 has two doors per carriage. Please wait either side of the green illuminated doors until all arriving passengers have disembarked."

It would soon reach a stage where regular passengers (Ie the majority of users) would know to locate themselves near the doors which have a green light.

[frereOP]

^Its no different to the way they deal with 3 car trains...People are able to arrange themselves in order to actually board the train.

I could imagine an announcement like this.

"The train arriving on platform 1 has two doors per carriage. Please wait either side of the green illuminated doors until all arriving passengers have disembarked."

It would soon reach a stage where regular passengers (Ie the majority of users) would know to locate themselves near the doors which have a green light.

I would suggest you go to Singapore for your next holiday and see how these stations work by spending it riding the MRT.

[justanotheruser]

Yes, the rollingstock must evolve. Nice to have lots of seating, few doors etc when it was a country town sort of service. Unless we are going to have something like San Fransisco BART build in Brisbane, I would suggest removing seats. I'd rather stand than be forced to wait a good 15 minutes to get a seat or until the next train came along. The metro systems have less seats.

might be ok for you to stand but on long trips i have to sit down and they don't like people sitting on the floor.  I have to sit down for pure medical reasons and I know I'm not the only one.

[justanotheruser]

while I don't have a wheelchair myself I do work in disability services field and have witnessed people getting on with wheelchairs. While ramps are used in sydney I have seen people get on themselves in wheelchairs by going backwards allowing them to lean back to get the small front wheels over the gap. However with nothing to hold onto getting off they do need a ramp or assistance.

What Gazza was suggesting (and it is very easy to see if people actually read) is that future stock and platforms should be made so a wheelchair can board all by themselves depending on individual. There are those in wheelchairs who will always have a carer with them out of neccesity.

[#Metro]

It might be ok for you to stand but on long trips i have to sit down and they don't like people sitting on the floor.  I have to sit down for pure medical reasons and I know I'm not the only one.

Disagree, but I understand that this is a second-best solution.

I think it is important to have a sense of design for purpose here. Certainly longer trips will need to have more seats to reflect the longer trip- this is true for all transportation vehicles which do long haul work, just compare your standard BT bus with a long distance coach, or the seating you get on a domestic flight vs a long haul international one. The comfort levels and seating are different to reflect this. I have no problem with retaining seats for the long haul lines.

However, none of this exempts the possibility that the shorter lines (Cleveland/Beenleigh?) could be changed to have more standing space.
This exchanges seats for more room. If you don't do this, you are going to have a situation where the carriage is needlessly crowded and people are squashed in like sardines
because the sheer number of seats is eating up the space in the train. Some people may be left behind on the platform and have to catch the next service.

I'd rather stand than be left behind. Those with special needs- surely a case could be made for them to have seats reserved and marked
as we reserve seats now for disabled, elderly, wheelchair users etc.

The first-best solution is to build CRR, but of course, that has been delayed now.

[Stillwater]

Why not have train cars designed to include space for those 'bum rests' that we see at Central Station?  It is a sort of half stand, half sitting situation.

[justanotheruser]

It might be ok for you to stand but on long trips i have to sit down and they don't like people sitting on the floor.  I have to sit down for pure medical reasons and I know I'm not the only one.

I'd rather stand than be left behind. Those with special needs- surely a case could be made for them to have seats reserved and marked
as we reserve seats now for disabled, elderly, wheelchair users etc.

but I don't qualify for those seats according to guidelines so if asked to move from those seats I have to get up. It is one thing to put aside seats but another to make sure it is enforced. I was on crutchers one time and there was another person on crutchers and nobody offered their seats to either of us.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I'm sorry but I just do not see the point of modifying the trains. Just leave the trains as they are now. They get the job done brilliantly. Plenty of seats and the trains can run on any line without a problem or the risk of a train with no seats getting stuck on a Nambour/Gold Coast express due to rollingstock restraints. And god help us if those bum rest seats get applied. Everytime there's breaking/acceleration suddenly everyone slides along the bars. If there's going to be complaining about how many doors are on a train or how long it takes passengers to get on and off you might as well start complaining about how obese and old people take that extra second or two to get on/off the train or even how the doors on the IMUs/new SMUs aren't as quick to open/close as the older SMUs/EMUs. Also how about getting people to learn how wait for and to board a train. I can't count the number of times I have almost felt like belting people to get out of my way just because everyone crowds around and push and barge to get on first while people are still trying to get off. Get them to stand aside, have a clear path for people to get off then board. If the point for less dwell times is for a quicker trip run more trains express to Northgate/Corinda-Dara then all stations during peak for one. If your too impatient to wait those extra few seconds why not drive, pay for parking and sit in traffic jams every day. Public transport is there to provide an alternative service. It doesn't have to suit every single person in Queensland as that's just near impossible.

[Gazza]

I would suggest you go to Singapore for your next holiday and see how these stations work by spending it riding the MRT.

Mate, I've been on the Jubillee Line in London, so I know how stations with screen doors operate.

I mean, obviously we don't have the luxury of line bound rolling stock, so I was merely suggesting a way of configuring the system so it could work with both 2 or 3 door trains.

I don't see how having a system of informing passengers as to what type of train is arriving is that unreasonable.

[BrizCommuter]

I'm sorry but I just do not see the point of modifying the trains. Just leave the trains as they are now. They get the job done brilliantly. Plenty of seats and the trains can run on any line without a problem or the risk of a train with no seats getting stuck on a Nambour/Gold Coast express due to rollingstock restraints. And god help us if those bum rest seats get applied. Everytime there's breaking/acceleration suddenly everyone slides along the bars. If there's going to be complaining about how many doors are on a train or how long it takes passengers to get on and off you might as well start complaining about how obese and old people take that extra second or two to get on/off the train or even how the doors on the IMUs/new SMUs aren't as quick to open/close as the older SMUs/EMUs. Also how about getting people to learn how wait for and to board a train. I can't count the number of times I have almost felt like belting people to get out of my way just because everyone crowds around and push and barge to get on first while people are still trying to get off. Get them to stand aside, have a clear path for people to get off then board. If the point for less dwell times is for a quicker trip run more trains express to Northgate/Corinda-Dara then all stations during peak for one. If your too impatient to wait those extra few seconds why not drive, pay for parking and sit in traffic jams every day. Public transport is there to provide an alternative service. It doesn't have to suit every single person in Queensland as that's just near impossible.

HappyTrainGuy - Have you ever left Brisbane? I suggest you should travel (or attempt to travel) on Shanghai Metro Line 1 in the am peak before commenting on Brisbanites train boarding manners!

The current trains do not do their job brilliantly - there are insufficient handrails that restrict standing capacity, and door areas are cramped, and dwell times can be excessive due to lack of doors. Any efficient high capacity, and high frequency rail system requires plenty of door flow (more and/or wider doors), and plenty of standing space. There is no reason why there cannot be outer suburban stock with more seating, and inner suburban stock with less seating & more doors. Plenty of rail operators around the world have different rolling stock for different purposes (Japan being the best example), and this works very well.