Folks

Whilst I don't expect to see a Brisbane Underground in my remaining life [20
years, with any
luck], if pursued it would be a chance to break away from all the constraints
of 1865 QR and start
with a huge double-stack [for passengers] loading gauge.

Perhaps ??

Brian



Quoting neillfarmer <nmfarmer@...>:

> Melbourne's commuter rail is a bigger basket case than Sydney's with
>
> a private operator making it an easy excuse and target for a lazy
> government who, while talking up public rail transport, in reality
> have spent very little to improve the nuts and bolts of the system.
> The Vic DD was an orphan, built to a different loading gauge to
> Sydney's so there was little chance of tacking on construction to get
>
> lower costs. Nobody seemed interested in taking the prototype into a
>
> production run, and making some infastucture changes to allow it to
> run everywhere. The powers that be seemed obsessed with station dwell
>
> times. In the end they just gave up. Just more cheap single deckers.
>
> Here in Brisbane that 25kv AC will jump a lot further than the old
> tame 1500V DC, plus the existing loading gauge is just too
> constricted. Afraid we're stuck with single deckers.
> Neill
>
> --- In qrig@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Crellin" <ncrel@...> wrote:
> >
> > But why Neill? I rode in the train on a few occasions and it seemed
>
> to me to be the answer to Melbourne's peak overloading problems. Why
>
> should they scrap a train with the obvious potential to reliieve the
>
> peak hour crush in favour of yet more single deck vehicles which have
>
> no real improved capacity?
> >
> > If double deck vehicles ever became feasible in Brisbane, I would
> hope that QR would actively embrace the concept. Having endured peak
>
> hour loadings in Melbourne in recent times, I am completely
> flabbergasted that this double deck train was not persevered with.
> >
> > Is the Queensland loading gauge so restrictive that a double deck
>
> passenger vehicle is not possible?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Neil C
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: neillfarmer
> > To: qrig@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 6:35 PM
> > Subject: [qrig] Re: LNP's transport policy release
> >
> >
> > They chopped it up into little pieces about a year ago.
> > Neill
> >
> > --- In qrig@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Crellin" <ncrel@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess double deck trains are out of the question here because
>
> of
> > the loading gauge? Whatever happened to the Melbourne Tangara?
> > >
> > > Neil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Shane
> > > To: qrig@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 5:03 PM
> > > Subject: [qrig] Re: LNP's transport policy release
> > >
> > >
> > > I think Springborg meant that they would get a trailer car in
> > > advance and place in the existing but recently delivered 3 car
>
> > sets.
> > > So instead of D-T-D, it would be D-T-T-D. I don't think there
> is
> > any
> > > intention to modify older probably non-compatible EMU's or even
>
> > SMU
> > > or SMU2's. Also EMU's are lower powered.
> > snip
> > > Regards
> > > Shane
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.13/1827 - Release Date:
>
> 12/3/2008 5:41 PM
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>