Trains and doors- reduce dwell times

[petey3801]

How hard would it be to make it serviceable again? Could works on the platform bring it into service again?

I expect: very hard.  The curve is too tight.

Although it may be possible to connect the DG to platform 3.

Platform 3 at Park Road is also a basket case safety issue, the problems with both platforms 3 and 4 could be minimised but not to the now nanny state standards despite the same authorities still building new and rebuilding platforms that do not comply with their own standards.
The new standards are seemingly applied where an excuse is required to do nothing and the problem is then relegated to the too hard basket usualy in reality because of cost.

Could someone explain to me what exactly is wrong with Platform 4 at Park Road?  Is it a case of excessive gap due to the tight curve and having to accommodate the NSW loading gauge.

Basically, yes. The curve makes the gap quite large, especially on the country end of the platform. The cant on the curve also makes it a very high gap, resulting in the need for ramps to be used to unload passengers AIUI.

[#Metro]

I was searching today--- and look what I found!!!

One door... Two doors... THREE doors...
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metro-liveried-XTrapolis-train-863M.jpg

[#Metro]

If you want to run a system more like a metro--- get three doors IMHO.

[ghostryder]

Tramtrain
You suggested that by removing seats that it would increase capacity, well i did some searching on the internet myself and found the following capacities.

Xtrapolis
Capacity    264 seated, 133 standing per 3-car unit  total passengers  397 (3 door.)

EMU
Capacity    248 Seating per 3-car set 252 Standing per 3-car set 500 Total per 3-car set  (2 door)

Capacity    200 series: (per 3-car set)  240 Seating & 260 Standing    500 Total per 3-car set (2 door.)
               220 series: (per 3-car set)  236 Seating & 266 Standing    502 Total per 3-car set (2 door.)
               260 series: (per 3-car set)  236 Seating & 222 Standing    458 Total per 3-car set (2 door.)

figures as per wikipedia files.

scott

[#Metro]

Hi there, thanks for this.  

Actually, it was more about dwell times, but capacity is in there too. Are the trains the same length and width?
Are the numbers measured at the same passenger density? I'm guessing they are.

Xtrapolis
Capacity    264 seated, 133 standing per 3-car unit  total passengers  397 (3 door.)

EMU
Capacity    248 Seating per 3-car set 252 Standing per 3-car set 500 Total per 3-car set  (2 door)

Capacity    200 series: (per 3-car set)  240 Seating & 260 Standing    500 Total per 3-car set (2 door.)
               220 series: (per 3-car set)  236 Seating & 266 Standing    502 Total per 3-car set (2 door.)
               260 series: (per 3-car set)  236 Seating & 222 Standing    458 Total per 3-car set (2 door.)

figures as per wikipedia files.

And I'll just point out, your post actually shows that the 3 door X'Trapolis has more seats, not less, than any of the EMU's listed.  

So I think it is consistent with the idea more seats = less capacity. So you could have your three doors and seats!

 

Weird huh???


So I'm thinking...
Remove a few seats- increase capacity
Third door- reduce dwells and allow passengers to escape packed trains quickly.

Any references to Japan, China or overseas as demonstrating "it won't work here" don't seem to hold water IMHO. Metro Trains Melbourne does it!

[Arnz]

Melbourne's rollingstock is on standard gauge.  Our's (Queensland) is on Narrow Gauge, thus the Melbourne units are wider than the Brisbane suburban units of QR. 

Melbourne is able to fit in a extra seat per row due to the different layout of the units (designed for standard gauge).

[BrizCommuter]

Melbourne's rollingstock is on standard gauge.  Our's (Queensland) is on Narrow Gauge, thus the Melbourne units are wider than the Brisbane suburban units of QR. 

Melbourne is able to fit in a extra seat per row due to the different layout of the units (designed for standard gauge).

Melbourne's commuter system is wide gauge (1600mm), not standard gauge.

[#Metro]

Yes.

The principles:
1. If you remove seats ---> increase capacity
2. If you add an extra door ---> pax can escape crowded train faster

remain unaffected, no matter what the gauge is doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamanote_Line

Tokyo Yamanote line has trains run on identical gauge to Brisbane. Now, just so there is no misunderstanding, I'm not advocating that many seats and doors to be taken away. But it does show that you can have up to a 6 door train if you wanted to, running on narrow gauge. So 3 doors should be a walk in the park.

[#Metro]

Some comments (other thread):

There is a limit to what can be gained there without reducing the amenity of travel with the longer
distance and transit time of services.

I agree there is a limit, but I disagree that there is no room
for some improvement on the current situation. This could be helpful.

Wider Doors

The costs of rebuilding the existing fleet would be prohibitive, new rollingstock, how much wider do they need to be? More a case of education, there is sufficent room for two lines of people the enter or exit through the doors at present but frequently passengers try to use the centre of the doorway.

I agree the cost of rebuilding the existing fleet would be prohibitive, but the argument is redundant as there is no need to rebuild existing
rollingstock, slowly but surely one by one the older trains will be taken out of service and be replaced with new trains, so there may be some scope to increase door size, but on the other hand perhaps a third door (standard size) would work just as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
"Thesus' ship" is a term used when you take something and you replace each component slowly but surely over time as they need replacing.

Not a realistic option due the the general utilisation of the rollingstock and the transit times on the longer journeys, a higher frequency of services is a far better option.

Its strange that the Gold Coast trains are the ones that had longitudinal seating installed, which is the exact opposite of what I am thinking. Its the inner suburban trips that could benefit from this. In peak hour, this would make a difference as demand for space always exceeds supply during peak hour. In the off peak, fewer seats is a non-issue as there are so few passengers that everyone can find a seat anyway.

What is good and convenient for QR is not necessarily good and convenient for passengers. There should be different rollingstock for longer journeys to the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, to reflect the comfort levels required for longer journey times (like Toilets on the Sunshine Coast line!). And by and large this has somewhat been met. The Gold Coast trains have toilets, the inner suburban ones do not, for example.

It is understandable why QR does this (it is easy for them to pick just any train and send it anywhere, like the toiletless to the Sunshine Coast), but I'm starting to think practices like this should be abolished on a modern railway system, along with other ancient practices such as selected weekend trains terminating at South Bank (what the???), "dancing trains" on the Sunshine coast line,  half-hourly "rotten apple" services, and separate Saturday and Sunday timetables.

Again impractical, how many houses would need to be resumed and roads relocated to obtain the room for the additional platforms and what could be done in locations such as Roma Street, central and Fortitude Valley where the stations are boxed in and in the case of Central and Fortitude Valley built over.

Agreed. However, there might be a small sliver of possibility for newer stations to implement the "spanish solution" with CRR, though even I think this is unlikely.

[Arnz]

Melbourne's rollingstock is on standard gauge.  Our's (Queensland) is on Narrow Gauge, thus the Melbourne units are wider than the Brisbane suburban units of QR.  

Melbourne is able to fit in a extra seat per row due to the different layout of the units (designed for standard gauge).

Melbourne's commuter system is wide gauge (1600mm), not standard gauge.

Victoria converted to Standard Gauge a few years ago.  

Edit: I stand corrected then, it was most of regional Victoria that was converted after reading up on Railways in Melbourne.  Metro and interurban is still Broad Gauge.

[somebody]

Indeed.  Only the Geelong-Adelaide + Portland spur is SG, and possibly the Seymour (or vicinity) to Albury bit.

There is a third track from Melbourne to Geelong and Melbourne to Seymour.

Going from memory.

[colinw]

This is wandering way off topic, but I believe the current state of play for standard gauge in Victoria is:

Main Lines:
Melbourne to Adelaide (dual gauge from Geelong to Gheringhap)
Melbourne to Sydney (regauging of BG line Seymour to Albury recently completed, making that section double line)

Branch lines:
Benalla to Oaklands
Wodonga to Bandiana (was dual gauge) *
Maroona to Portland
Ararat to Maryborough *
Maryborough to Dunolly (dual gauge) **
Murtoa to Hopetoun
Dimboola to Yaapeet *

* = I think these lines may be mothballed now.
** = Maryborough to Dunolly only in use by broad gauge traffic.  SG rail is out of use.