The Melbourne Tangara
David Hoadley
is not a Tangara, even though it
a) looks like a Tangara
b) walks like a Tangara (guard in the middle of train)
c) quacks like a Tangara (horn just like a Sydney train)
so I was wondering what the differences actually are.
I notice it is in a 4-car set, like Sydney trains--does this mean the
carriages are only 3/4 the length of Comeng or Hitachi carriages, or is
this train longer than usual. If they are shorter, why? Does Sydney have
tighter curves on its system? I would have thought that being shorter
the carriages would lose almost as much capacity as they gain through
being double-decker. How does the capacity compare?
In Minister Brown's recent announcement of capital to be spent on the
rail system, most of which seemed to me to be just spent on necessary
maintenance (e.g. Comeng train mid-life major maintenance) rather than
on capital works, I saw nothing about what would replace the Hitachi
sets as they fall apart, which they are doing. Is the Tangara a certainty
for the replacement? How is the trial going?
Thanks for any info,
David.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hoadley Internet: s84...@minyos.xx.rmit.edu.au
Electrical Engineering, RMIT
Melbourne, Australia Ph: +61 3 9660-4847, Fax: +61 3 9660-2007
David Bromage
>I saw the experimental Tangara at Richmond yesterday, the one we are told
>is not a Tangara, even though it
> a) looks like a Tangara
> b) walks like a Tangara (guard in the middle of train)
The Met did that too on Hitachis and Comengs for a while.
> c) quacks like a Tangara (horn just like a Sydney train)
>so I was wondering what the differences actually are.
The 4D is much shorter than a Tangara and slightly narrower. The frame is
constructed differently as the Tangaras have skirts over the bogies. Broad
gauge bogies are too wide for skirts.
>I notice it is in a 4-car set, like Sydney trains--does this mean the
>carriages are only 3/4 the length of Comeng or Hitachi carriages, or is
>this train longer than usual. If they are shorter, why? Does Sydney have
>tighter curves on its system? I would have thought that being shorter
>the carriages would lose almost as much capacity as they gain through
>being double-decker. How does the capacity compare?
The 4D has a total capacity of 1000. A 3 car Comeng has a capcaity of 600.
>In Minister Brown's recent announcement of capital to be spent on the
>rail system, most of which seemed to me to be just spent on necessary
>maintenance (e.g. Comeng train mid-life major maintenance) rather than
>on capital works,
The Comeng sets are actually going for half life refit over the next 4
years.
>I saw nothing about what would replace the Hitachi
>sets as they fall apart, which they are doing. Is the Tangara a certainty
>for the replacement? How is the trial going?
The 4D is a very expensive lemon. The PTC don't want it, CityRail don't
want it (non-standard) and it's too big to run anywhere else in Australia.
A. Goninan & Co are hoping to export the design so it may go on tour
overseas (as has the X2000 tilt train) as a demonstration set.
At the ARE meeting in December, Ian Dobbs (CEO of the PTC) said that the
Hitachis have about 5 years of life remaining. They would be replaced by
another form of high capacity train, probably articulated (i.e. 3 cars on
4 bogies or 6 cars on 7 bogies). By removing the end panels of each car
and opening them up, an extra half a car length of passenger space can be
gained. They would also be able to run over the whole network, not just on
the modified lines. A lot of expensive track, overhead and platform work
had to be done to allow the 4D to run in Melbourne.
I think that the articulated design would be quite useful. Deutsche Bahn
runs 3 and 4 car articulated S-Bahn trains.
Cheers
David
Andrew Waugh
>At the ARE meeting in December, Ian Dobbs (CEO of the PTC) said that the
>Hitachis have about 5 years of life remaining. They would be replaced by
>another form of high capacity train, probably articulated (i.e. 3 cars on
>4 bogies or 6 cars on 7 bogies). By removing the end panels of each car
>and opening them up, an extra half a car length of passenger space can be
>gained.
Let's take a 3 car set on 4 bogies. The gap between the carriages is around
one metre. Removing both gaps would mean that an extra bay of seats could be
accommodated; improving the seating capacity by 10 and the standing capacity
by about 3. Of course, you couldn't actually put a bay of seats at the
articulation point. The actual arrangement would be similar to the articulation
between the units of the B class tram - a wide walkway. This might accommodate
up to 10 standing passengers in a crush. Hardly a major gain over the crush
load of a 3 car set.
You could only get this additional space by articulating an entire 6 car set
(on 7 bogies). The gap between the motor cars is significant and you would
eliminate two cabs. But this would mean fixed 6 car sets; a major reduction
in flexibility. Is the PTC willing to restrict these sets to peak use, off
peak services on the few lines which justify six car sets, and Saturdays when
the footy is on? Or will they run six car sets anyway?
The additional length could cause clearance problems. Comeng cars are pretty
much as long as can be used on the existing network (and to get this length
they had to curve the body in at the foot of the car). In a 6 car articulated
set, each car would not only be one twelfth longer (accepting the half car
gain) but the bogie pivots would be at the ends of the cars. This could make
the centre clearance very tight indeed. Of course, you could always solve this
problem by having shorter cars with more articulation points. But this reduces
seating capacity, and, more importantly, increases the number of bogies in the
set (which weakens the major advantage of articulation).
The most cost effective way to increase passenger space would simply be to
get rid of the cabs in each motor car. This space is no longer needed for the
Guard. The disadvantage would be a slight lowering of safety for passengers
(the cabs serve as 'crumple zones' in the event of a head on or rear end
collision) and somewhere else would have to be found for the emergency
equipment and wheelchair ramp. This modification could probably be done in the
Comeng half life refurbishments.
>They would also be able to run over the whole network, not just on
>the modified lines. A lot of expensive track, overhead and platform work
>had to be done to allow the 4D to run in Melbourne.
Exactly. A lot of the work has already been done to allow double deck cars
in Melbourne. I suspect the real problem is simply that the previous
government built the first Car Maintenance Centre at Epping and the current
government has made it the sole centre. The Epping line, however, happens to be
one of the two lines in Melbourne which would be expensive to convert for
double deck operation.
This shows great forward planning. The lines that have already been converted
were probably the most expensive to convert as they had the most overbridges.
The remaining lines have few overbridges and most bridges probably already have
sufficient clearance (or should have as the bridges are usually less than
thirty years old). Further, since you can decide now to introduce double deck
cars in five years, you can spread the cost over a longer period and perform
much of the work as part of planned maintenance.
>I think that the articulated design would be quite useful. Deutsche Bahn
>runs 3 and 4 car articulated S-Bahn trains.
Articulation could be used between the cars of a 3 car set if the saving in
bogies was cost effective. But only then.
andrew waugh
Fraser Bryden
>s84...@minyos.xx.rmit.EDU.AU (David Hoadley) writes:
>
>>I saw the experimental Tangara at Richmond yesterday, the one we are told
>>is not a Tangara, even though it
>> a) looks like a Tangara
>> b) walks like a Tangara (guard in the middle of train)
>
>The Met did that too on Hitachis and Comengs for a while.
>
>> c) quacks like a Tangara (horn just like a Sydney train)
and
d) seats like a Tangara (seats inside look the same)
>>In Minister Brown's recent announcement of capital to be spent on the
>>rail system, most of which seemed to me to be just spent on necessary
>>maintenance (e.g. Comeng train mid-life major maintenance) rather than
>>on capital works,
Most of the current spending seems to be on "easy" stuff like station
upgrades (signs, lights, paint jobs etc) rather than on "real"
improvements, like track and signal upgrading, and improving
service frequency (which I guess is much harder to do if you don't
have the number of drivers or working trains required)
>The Comeng sets are actually going for half life refit over the next 4
>years.
Hopefully this will at least improve the reliability of services...
>>I saw nothing about what would replace the Hitachi
>>sets as they fall apart, which they are doing. Is the Tangara a certainty
>>for the replacement? How is the trial going?
>At the ARE meeting in December, Ian Dobbs (CEO of the PTC) said that the
>Hitachis have about 5 years of life remaining. They would be replaced by
Are the Hitachis and the Comengs the same thing? I thought the Hitachi's
preceded the Comengs???
---
Fraser Bryden
Email: mailto:ski...@werple.mira.net.au
WWW: http://werple.mira.net.au/~skiman
"No silicon heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?"
Kryten 2X4B-523P
Red Dwarf
David Bromage
>>At the ARE meeting in December, Ian Dobbs (CEO of the PTC) said that the
>>Hitachis have about 5 years of life remaining. They would be replaced by
>Are the Hitachis and the Comengs the same thing? I thought the Hitachi's
>preceded the Comengs???
The Hitachis are the non-airconditioned tin cans built in the early 1970s,
the ones with the wedge shaped nose.
Cheers
David
David Bromage
>by about 3. Of course, you couldn't actually put a bay of seats at the
>articulation point.
Who says you can't? Trains aren't going to be running around curves as
sharp as tram lines. You could put two seats with their backs against the
wall. I've seen this done on Perth articulated buses.
>You could only get this additional space by articulating an entire 6 car set
>(on 7 bogies). The gap between the motor cars is significant and you would
>eliminate two cabs. But this would mean fixed 6 car sets; a major reduction
>in flexibility. Is the PTC willing to restrict these sets to peak use, off
>peak services on the few lines which justify six car sets, and Saturdays when
>the footy is on? Or will they run six car sets anyway?
I have never seen any published figures to say how much extra power is
used (i.e. cost of the electricity) in running a 6 car set over 3 cars.
Ian Dobbs proposed that the new EMUs would be "outer suburban" trains
which would run to the extremities of the network, leaving the Comengs to
run the inner services. He said that it was essential to reduce travel
times to the extremities of the suburban network and proposed a "two tier"
system with more express trains to the outer areas (Zone 2 and beyond)
with stopping trains running ahead of them as sweepers.
A Comeng would stop all stations to the first station in Zone 2 capable of
terminating a train. The new train (I presume they would have flipover
seats) would run express to that station arriving (in theory) about 4
minutes later, than stop all stations to the end of the line.
This means that all trains out of Melbourne would be stopping all stations
to Zone 2, or express to Zone 2 then all stations to the end of the line.
There would be no more of the "limited express" trains, e.g. stopping
Glenferrie, Camberwell, Box Hill then all stations to Belgrave.
One way of speeding up all trains would be to add the "yellow over yellow"
aspect to automatic signalling. Having been given an additional warning
before a danger signal, train speeds could be increased by 10-15km/h
Comments Andrew?
>The most cost effective way to increase passenger space would simply be to
>get rid of the cabs in each motor car. This space is no longer needed for the
>Guard.
Some sort of "half cab" arrangement as is done with the Sprinters and
TransAdelaide 3000 class DMUs, and the No.2 end of a DERM or DRC would
have merit. In the most extreme cases, a small window could be built into
the inner side of the cab through which the driver could sell tickets.
Don't laugh too loud, this used to be done on some country branch lines
where rail motors ran without guards.
On the subject of guards and the like, a much cheaper alternative to AFC
would have been to modify all suburban trains so that the doors could be
closed from any doorway with a key. This is done in Adelaide where the
trains have a roving guard who also sells tickets. The cost of converting
all trains would have been far less than equipping every station with
cameras for DOO.
Cheers
David
Lori and Daniel Bowen
>You could only get this additional space by articulating an entire 6 car set
>(on 7 bogies). The gap between the motor cars is significant and you would
>eliminate two cabs. But this would mean fixed 6 car sets; a major reduction
>in flexibility. Is the PTC willing to restrict these sets to peak use, off
>peak services on the few lines which justify six car sets, and Saturdays when
>the footy is on? Or will they run six car sets anyway?
Don't they always run the Hitachis in 6 car sets now?
In any case, many off-peak and weekend 3-car services that I've used
have been quite crowded, and could probably do with 6 car trains.
Certainly Ringwood and Frankston... I can't think of any good reason
why 3 car trains should run if it results in passengers standing outside
peak hour.
>The most cost effective way to increase passenger space would simply be to
>get rid of the cabs in each motor car. This space is no longer needed for the
>Guard. The disadvantage would be a slight lowering of safety for passengers
>(the cabs serve as 'crumple zones' in the event of a head on or rear end
>collision) and somewhere else would have to be found for the emergency
>equipment and wheelchair ramp. This modification could probably be done in the
>Comeng half life refurbishments.
Ummm... maybe I'm missing something here, but where would the
driver sit?
Daniel Bowen
Paul Pavlinovich
>Most of the current spending seems to be on "easy" stuff like station
>upgrades (signs, lights, paint jobs etc) rather than on "real"
>improvements, like track and signal upgrading, and improving
>service frequency (which I guess is much harder to do if you don't
>have the number of drivers or working trains required)
Actually, I've noticed a fair bit of signal upgrading. Many of the
semaphores west of the city (particularly Sunshine, and towards
Ballarat) have been replaced by colour light signals (they look like GEC
signals, but not 100% on that). I also noticed this on the Frankston line,
although I don't know how far they have gone on that line - I only went as
far as Highet (spel?).
The other major change I've seen lately is the removal of small goods
yards and sheds and the subsequent creation of car parks where the
yards were. This of course leads to mainline signalling changes as
the points the signals protected are not there any more!
They also seem to be doing some work on older platforms at some of the
V/Line stations to replace the slippery wooden edges.
Paul
Andrew Waugh
>a...@conger.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh) writes:
>
>>by about 3. Of course, you couldn't actually put a bay of seats at the
>>articulation point.
>
>Who says you can't? Trains aren't going to be running around curves as
>sharp as tram lines. You could put two seats with their backs against the
>wall. I've seen this done on Perth articulated buses.
Fair enough, but it's still a marginal increase in capacity. If the design
goal is to reduce costs (i.e. reduction in the number of bogies) then you
might as well put this space to good use by increasing the carrying capacity
slightly. But if the design goal is to significantly increase carrying
capacity, then articulation per se is not going to help.
>I have never seen any published figures to say how much extra power is
>used (i.e. cost of the electricity) in running a 6 car set over 3 cars.
Nor have I, but I would expect the power consumption to be only a little less
than a linear function of number of cars (say 75% to 90% increase from three
to six cars).
The basic weight of the train increases linearly with the number of cars.
The weight of the passengers doesn't, of course, but passenger weight would
usually be insignificant during the times that that 3 car sets are in
operation. (Real sardine packing *usually* occurs only in peak times, but
there are exceptions.)
There is an aerodynamic saving when running with more cars (as the Sprinters
show rather well), but this is also minor when an increase from 3 to 6 cars
is considered.
Anyway, don't forget that power is only one cost of running trains.
Fleet maintenance is a significant cost, and one which is based almost
entirely on mileage run. Running six car sets would increase the total
car/km run and hence increase maintenance costs.
>One way of speeding up all trains would be to add the "yellow over yellow"
>aspect to automatic signalling. Having been given an additional warning
>before a danger signal, train speeds could be increased by 10-15km/h
>Comments Andrew?
Yes, adding an additional aspect can be used to increase the speed.
They looked at this in the '50s and rejected 'yellow over yellow' as the
aspect is already used. Most other railways use a flashing aspect; in
Victoria the most sensible arrangement would be "flashing green over yellow"
for an aspect leading up to "reduce to medium speed" (green over yellow).
However, adding a fifth aspect would require significant alterations to
the signalling systems and level crossing approach circuits. If you are
doing this to just allow a new type of train to run at higher speeds, it may
be more cost effective to equip the new train with better brakes (as was
done with the HST and the APT).
andrew waugh
Paul Pavlinovich
>a...@conger.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh) writes:
>On the subject of guards and the like, a much cheaper alternative to AFC
>would have been to modify all suburban trains so that the doors could be
>closed from any doorway with a key. This is done in Adelaide where the
>trains have a roving guard who also sells tickets. The cost of converting
>all trains would have been far less than equipping every station with
>cameras for DOO.
The V/Line trains (except Sprinters) do this now. They have a roving guard
conductor who sells (often reluctantly) tickets as required. All doors are
controlled by a keyswitch (there is one next to each door, and it opens/closes
all doors on one side).
The doors in the Sprinters close lock, and unlock under driver control.
After stopping the driver unlocks all doors on the platform side, and the
passengers push a button to actually open the doors.
Any costs of having a roving guard are IMHO offset by the lack of graffiti
and other vandalism and better passenger behavior and increased passenger
safety. In the six years I've been using V/Line trains, I have only seen
a few instances of vandalism, and even fewer badly behaved passengers. Compare
that to my MET experiences. Every train has vandalism of some kind, and there
are often poorly behaved people. I used to catch the last train from Eltham
to the city and the last train from the city to Glen Waverley on a Saturday
night after work, every week without fail there would be the same three guys
on the GW train who would rip up seats, kick out windows and abuse the other
passengers. Occasionally they got arrested on arrival at GW, but only about
1 time out of 5 and they would be back the next week anyway!
Paul
Andrew Waugh
>a...@conger.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh) writes:
>>(on 7 bogies). The gap between the motor cars is significant and you would
>>eliminate two cabs. But this would mean fixed 6 car sets; a major reduction
>>in flexibility. Is the PTC willing to restrict these sets to peak use, off
>>peak services on the few lines which justify six car sets, and Saturdays when
>>the footy is on? Or will they run six car sets anyway?
>
>Don't they always run the Hitachis in 6 car sets now?
Yes, but primarily because they are equipped with conventional couplers and
connectors and there are no longer shunters or guards to assist in coupling
and uncoupling the sets. In any case, using the Hitachis in this way is not a
serious operational limitation. It makes sense to only use your oldest stock
only in times of peak demand. The stock is less comfortable (less attractive
to passengers), is less efficient, and has a higher maintenance cost per
kilometre run. These arguements would not apply to new stock.
>In any case, many off-peak and weekend 3-car services that I've used
>have been quite crowded, and could probably do with 6 car trains.
>Certainly Ringwood and Frankston... I can't think of any good reason
>why 3 car trains should run if it results in passengers standing outside
>peak hour.
Depends on how crowded the service is, and for how long. It makes no sense to
use a 6 car set if the overcrowding only occurs on one run of the day, or over
one section (e.g. the last sections into the city). I would agree that some
runs *are* overcrowded outside peak hours, and the Met should be using the
coupling/uncoupling ability of the Comeng sets to build up 3 car sets for
individual runs which are known to be heavily loaded.
>>The most cost effective way to increase passenger space would simply be to
>>get rid of the cabs in each motor car. This space is no longer needed for the
>>Guard.
>
>Ummm... maybe I'm missing something here, but where would the
>driver sit?
I should have used the word 'compartment' instead of 'cab'; the big area at
the front of each motor car where the Guard used to sit. You would, of course,
need a cab for the Driver - if only to prevent tampering with the controls.
andrew waugh
David Bromage
>bro...@mdw078.cc.monash.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:
>>On the subject of guards and the like, a much cheaper alternative to AFC
>>would have been to modify all suburban trains so that the doors could be
>>closed from any doorway with a key. This is done in Adelaide where the
>>trains have a roving guard who also sells tickets. The cost of converting
>>all trains would have been far less than equipping every station with
>>cameras for DOO.
>The V/Line trains (except Sprinters) do this now. They have a roving guard
>conductor who sells (often reluctantly) tickets as required. All doors are
>controlled by a keyswitch (there is one next to each door, and it opens/closes
>all doors on one side).
This is only on the H sets. The N and Z sets have inward swinging doors.
The MTH cars (Stony Point line) have sliding doors but they do not
automatically close.
Cheers
David
Paul Pavlinovich
>pa...@twzone.ppit.com.au (Paul Pavlinovich) writes:
>>bro...@mdw078.cc.monash.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:
Basically true, although the Z (I think) also have automatic intermediary doors between the passenger area and the toilet/doorway area (and no I do NOT
mean people piss out of the doorway).
Paul
David Bromage
>>>The V/Line trains (except Sprinters) do this now. They have a roving guard
>>>conductor who sells (often reluctantly) tickets as required. All doors are
>>>controlled by a keyswitch (there is one next to each door, and it opens/closes
>>>all doors on one side).
>>This is only on the H sets. The N and Z sets have inward swinging doors.
>>The MTH cars (Stony Point line) have sliding doors but they do not
>>automatically close.
>Basically true, although the Z (I think) also have automatic intermediary
>doors between the passenger area and the toilet/doorway area (and no I do
>NOT mean people piss out of the doorway).
Only the N sets have automatic doors between cars. I'm pretty sure that
the Z and few remaining S cars have swinging doors between cars.
Interestingly, the doors on the N cars are worked by air from the
independent brake cylinder of the locomotive, hence they have an extra
brake hose on each end.
Air conditioned sleeping cars 1 "Werribee", 2 "Indi", 3 "Ovens" and 4
"Buchan" had independent air piped through so that that N sets could be
used on relief divisions of the Vinelander, although I don't think this
ever happened. The hoses were stripped from the sleeping cars when they
were withdrawn but the pipes were left in place. Steamrail has fitted
Werribee with hoses so it can now run as the leading vehicle on a "car
attached" tours.
Cheers
David
David Bromage
>>One way of speeding up all trains would be to add the "yellow over yellow"
>>aspect to automatic signalling. Having been given an additional warning
>>before a danger signal, train speeds could be increased by 10-15km/h
>>Comments Andrew?
>Yes, adding an additional aspect can be used to increase the speed.
>They looked at this in the '50s and rejected 'yellow over yellow' as the
>aspect is already used.
That was for repeating signals in advance of home signals. The lights
would be in line, not staggered as would be displayed by an automatic
signal.
>Most other railways use a flashing aspect; in
>Victoria the most sensible arrangement would be "flashing green over yellow"
>for an aspect leading up to "reduce to medium speed" (green over yellow).
>However, adding a fifth aspect would require significant alterations to
>the signalling systems and level crossing approach circuits. If you are
>doing this to just allow a new type of train to run at higher speeds, it may
>be more cost effective to equip the new train with better brakes (as was
>done with the HST and the APT).
A change in signalling would allow ALL trains to run at higher speeds.
This way you'd do away with locomotive hauled passenger trains crawling
through the first 10km of the suburbs at only 65km/h.
Cheers
David