Should Sydney stick with its double decker trains?

Sydney's bi-level trains are an iconic part of the city's transport network! So why are the city's newest train lines switching to single level trains instead?
Support me on Ko-Fi! ko-fi.com/citymoose
Double decker trains are rarely used in the types of 'metro' style scenarios that Sydney uses them in. They do have some drawbacks, but they also bring significant benefits. So, in this video I investigate if Sydney's double deckers provide enough benefits to justify using them instead of the more standard single deck trains found across the rest of the world.
Sydney Metro Video: • Sydney's ambitious pla...
Sydney Trains Vlogs Channel: / @sydneytrainsvlogs

[@gregessex1851]

7:15 It’s not just the size of the tunnels that saves money. The lighter metro trains with higher currents can go up higher grades meaning that alignments are much more flexible which leads to massive savings. Just look at the god awful alignment on the eastern end of the Chatswood to Epping Line as exhibit A.

[@shaunclarke94]

If I'm taking a long journey, my main requirement is comfort, not shaving a few minutes off if it means I'm stuck standing the whole time. For long journeys that would absolutely deter people from considering public transport.

[@Secretlyanothername]

Faster journeys are more comfortable

[@shaunclarke94]

@@Secretlyanothername no, they're faster. Comfort is seperate.

[@theannonymous]

How you say "doubledeckertrains" without any pause is beyond me. Just love it😂

[@rickyrickstan563]

As a Sydneysider I would be personally offended if the trains became single deck

[@Secretlyanothername]

That would be a bonus

[@AverytheCubanAmerican]

The LIRR operates double-decker trains as well on their diesel branches! Just like how certain Sydney Trains can't fit in tunnels because they're double-decker, the LIRR C3 bi-levels can't use the 63rd Street Tunnel to reach Grand Central Madison because the tunnel was built before the LIRR got bi-levels. The C3s were built by Kawasaki and are based off the C1 which were built by Tokyu Car Corporation. They were designed by Comeng, an Aussie company, who worked with Mitsui and it was one of the last Comeng projects before they ceased to exist in 1990. Comeng didn’t follow through with building because of instability, so they sold the design to Mitsui, who in turn sold the design to Tokyu. Bilevels were chosen because of getting the capacity they want while making up for the short platforms on the diesel branches. The C1s entered service in 1991 and were part of an experiment to see if they could do a one-seat ride on the partially electrified Port Jefferson Branch, which isn’t electrified between Port Jeff and Huntington, to Penn Station. If successful, they’d make a larger order. Which ended up becoming the C3 in 1998 based on an updated design thanks to feedback. The C1s were sold to private owners like Saratoga & North Creek who sold them to Cape Cod Central.

[@DutchRailwaysLover]

As a former Sydneysider, I really want the double decker trains to stay. They make the train network so nostalgic for me.

[@friedorange5999]

Agreed

[@Secretlyanothername]

Your nostalgia is irrelevant

[@PublicTransportFan___2010.....]

I love your video... :) As a Sydney based train fan, I love our iconic double deck trains with reversible seats.

[@rogue265]

Finally... the Single Deck Train tunnels in Sydney are only 30-60cm narrower than a DD tunnel (depending on what standard from NSW you use)

[@Cybernetic_Systems]

I really like the the double decker trains. They just have so much more seating. I lived in Sydney in the 90’s and I miss them here in Melbourne. The trains here feel much more crowded and less comfortable.

[@kyletopfer7818]

They don't have more seating across the line, take a closer look at the numbers. Sydney Metro 8-car train = 504 seats Sydney Trains Waratah train = 880 seats Sydney Metro seating capacity: 504 seats x 36 trains per hour = *18,144 seats per hour per direction* Sydney Trains seating capacity: 880 seats x 20 trains per hour = *17,600 seats per hour per direction* Sydney Metro line capacity: 1,466 passengers x 36 trains per hour = *52,776 passengers per hour per direction* Sydney Trains line capacity: 1200 passengers x 20 trains per hour = *24,000 passengers per hour per direction*

[@Cybernetic_Systems]

@@kyletopfer7818I was comparing to Melbourne trains. We have 3 sets of doors per car, fixed direction seating and a lot less than a current double deck Sydney train. Even the new High Capacity Metro Trains only have 500 seats.

[@vintageradio3404]

@@kyletopfer7818 An eight car double deck train in Sydney has a crush capacity of around 2,000 passengers. I am not sure where your numbers are coming from but they are not correct. The number of trains quoted is though. This is swings and roundabouts stuff. On heavy rail, you have a better chance of getting a seat and this is good because the journey can be a long one. Tens of thousands of people come to Sydney to work from Newcastle, Mt Victoria and Wollongong and it is fitting that as many as possible have a seat. Melbourne doesn't have intercity electric services. If they did, they'd want an equivalent to a V-set rather than the DMU junk they are serving up to regional passengers at the moment.

[@vintageradio3404]

@@BB-xx3dv I don't dispute that. I am just saying the calculations are not relevant. If the trains hold 2,000 people (and, they do) then that is what matters at the end of the day. Name one passenger rail service anywhere in the world that bans people from getting on a train where all seats are taken...

[@vintageradio3404]

@@BB-xx3dv Ohhh, so Sydney Trains is wrong are they? Maybe you should get on board one some time and see for yourself. The passenger counters do get it right most of the time at least. These exist on all A and B sets and will most likely be on the D sets too. You are right about one thing, dwell times do increase but this is a heavy rail system, not metro rail. Dwell times aren't as important, given the longer journeys we are talking about for a majority of the passengers.

[@andrewyoung3299]

I grew up in Sydney and love the double-decker trains. They're iconic for the city and suburbs. My favourite type are the Tangara sets

[@PublicTransportFan___2010.....]

I never liked the Tangara sets..... They don't have our iconic reversible seats, they have no display screens, and it just isn't a very nice experience to travel in one.....

[@vintageradio3404]

@@PublicTransportFan___2010..... Back in 1983 when they started designing the Tangara display screens on trains wasn't a thing in Australia. And in reality, for people like me, who grew up riding our oldest trains, the mighty red rattlers, the Sputniks, etc., I don't really notice them anyway. I'd prefer to look out the window when I'm on the train and work out when I am arriving that way. I'm not one of the zombie passengers that exist these days who just buried their heads in their phone and shuts themselves off from reality. You are right about one thing - the fixed seating sucks and the Government didn't work this out from feedback about the T sets when building the D sets because they have the same fixed seating. The D sets use the same cars as the A, B, H and M sets, just made by Hyundai Rotem instead of Downer EDI or Goninan, yet the seats from these trains weren't carried over - odd.

[@Designfornow1]

Something also worth considering is that with bigger trains you can have the same capacity as more frequent smaller trains but have to pay for fewer drivers. considering drivers get paid ~90k a year, having even 10% fewer drivers is a significant cost saving. Im not sure what the maintenance cost comparison is, but having fewer larger trains could also be a cost-saving.

[@ChrisJohannsen]

Why do you care about this? Support jobs

[@soph_the_great_Aus]

I say ban the single train crewless trains.

[@vintageradio3404]

@@ChrisJohannsen Such trains are necessary on the complex heavy rail network but metro rail is a different story. Driverless trains work well and don't go on strike. The RBTU has no power over them and that is a wonderful thing. People are happy to support jobs and there were plenty of them created when building the metro lines but what most won't back is the threat of being inconvenienced by a mob who want an unreasonable pay rise.

[@davidhauser2665]

​@@vintageradio3404driverless trains leave commuters without anyone to help them in an emergency. Your point is a false economy

[@vintageradio3404]

@@davidhauser2665 I think the same people would assist - police, firefighters, ambulance officers, etc. Driverless trains aren't new and were first introduced something like 40 years ago. They are just as safe as the old fashioned ones.

[@brimbles4999]

rmtransit made a really great video on this, he talks about how in some areas it is in fact a good idea to turn a double decker line into a metro line but ALSO argues that sydney west airport should've actually been connected to a double decker line extension instead of a metro line due to the way in which people use airport connected rail. really great video i advise everyone to watch

[@brimbles4999]

will say, a hot take of mine is despite the character they give the train, the reversible seats i feel kinda hinder the rail experience rather than improve it. makes it so you can't have fold out tables on the back of seats, or have 2 sets of chairs facing each other with a table inbetween and then the added cost of maintenance of the chairs to remain switchable... god sydney locals are gonna murder me they are nice i swear!!! i just think there's a good reason no one else has adopted this design for their double decker trains. but maybe character is enough

[@Mick_Unfiltered]

I get a 3 hour train from Lithgow to Central 2-4 times a week and just love the double deckers and reversible seats, they’re too iconically Sydney to not keep them.

[@CityConnectionsMedia]

Great video, but I think you missed a few things. 1:45-3:00 There was actually quite a few factors that led to Sydney switching over to double deckers, the main one was the single deck network struggling for capacity (as you alluded to) combined with a lack of government investment in network upgrades. So the Department of Railways wanted a cheap option that would improve capacity, which led to them ordering the Tulloch Double Deck trailers, Tulloch Double Deck Motor car prototypes. The reason they stuck with them was because the 1968 Sydney Region Outline Plan also reccomended a system of urban sprawl along existing rail corridors which mitigated most of the issues of using single deck/metro style rolling stock. There was some consideration of introducing more single deck stock in the 1974 Sydney Area Transport Study, but it was rejected just because of how much extra capacity double deckers gave. 2:22 This just isn't true at all. Yes, steam engines could run into the City Circle, but they would never actually do it, there was just not enough ventilation capacity. All legs were electrified and used electric rolling stock from the start. The reason the city circle tunnels were so big (and why our double deckers have the shape they do) is because they follow the 1921 loading gauge, which was designed to allow larger rolling stock at the time (increasing train widths from 2.9m to 3.15m) and potentially larger trains in the future. When Bradfield and Lucy designed it, they were mostly looking at future proofing because they knew once it was built, it would be very difficult to change it, although they didn't design it for double deckers, as the first double deck electric multiple units were the Tullochs in 1968. 2:30 that's pretty spot on, although it would be worth mentioning that the Hillside network could fit double deckers, it was just the bayside network that couldn't. The main reason Melbourne rejected the 4d was less because double deckers would be too expensive to operate, and more because the 4d had many, many issues from effectively being a Comeng/Tangara hybrid. Once the Met was broken up, there was even some consideration to buying more double deckers, although this fell through in favour of cheaper overseas trains (X'Trapolis and Nexus) 4:00 True, but the reason they're custom made is because Australia is the only country that has the capability to manufacture full double deck EMUs. European and Asian designs still have to section off part of the passenger compartment to provide space for the electrical equipment, while we're able to stuff it all into the bogey wells and roof. So the main reason they're custom is because if we bought off the shelf, we'd get something worse. The LNP found this out when they tried to the NIF trains 'off the shelf'. Otherwise, I think the video's great!

[@lzh4950]

So far I've seen Nexas only in Melbourne. Am thinking why the city opted for that model of rolling stock instead of Siemens' Desiro that's more common e.g. in European cities too

[@mjcats2011]

@@lzh4950 Because the Nexas train is cheap.

[@paulmiller591]

Excellent video, as usual Cheers!

[@andrewrollason4963]

Yes. Absolutely. Capacity is what is needed out in the suburbs.

[@pwhnckexstflajizdryvombqug9042]

As far as the weight is concerned, the Tulloch double deck carriages were actually lighter than the original red rattler carriages (mainly because they changed from steel to aluminium for the body of the trains). The trains have become heavier since because of air conditioning and technology but it’s interesting to think about. Also although your comparison of the London Underground Victoria line trains is technically correct, I am not sure if the 2009 stock can accelerate at 1.2/1.3 m/s/s the whole way up to line speed. Normally acceleration tapers off above about 40 km/h. In the same way the Waratahs can accelerate at 1.1m/s/s up to about 40 km/h. It’s only marginally slower than the London Underground trains, and is very good when compared to most trains of their size. If you wanted to make Sydney’s trains accelerate faster you could by making every bogie powered. Trains are normally limited to 1.3m/s/s anyway, because any faster and it becomes uncomfortable

[@Reaper1770]

Agreed the only reason why we don't go to 1.1m/s is just because its bad practice and you will wheel spin. People assume the trains are slow but replacing them would still lead to same problems. Ie the slow speeds. The trains have never been the problem, its always the infrastructure. Theres a 50km speed board and ashfield. And from strathfield on the sub we are limited to a max of 80km. We can go much faster but the track wont let us. Cos even the xpt service is single decked and can't go faster

[@aerime]

Apart from the Bankstown line, which is set to start converting next year, the metro isnt replacing the double deckers. There is nothing to replace the T1 line which is the busiest line in the Sydney rail network. In fact, we actually need more capacity as more people are moving to western Sydney

[@dylanastawa8603]

Great video!! Although I fear from now on any future lines/extensions to Sydney train network will only be in the form of the metro. Ps, you’re damn gorgeous 🥰

[@jesserowlingsify]

great video. for many of sydney's rail lines (particularly the T4) the trains are primarily doing a long inbound run of pick up stops and dropping like 85% of passengers off at three or four stations (redfern, central, town hall, martin place). anecdotally, peak trains outbound and inbound are pretty much full by the time they get to the city with all seats and most standing room occupied. combined with the fact that our city lines are at capacity with the current schedule, i'm not sure you'd feasibly be able to pull that off with single storey trains. you'd need to a) increase frequency and b) have enough rolling stock to cover that. sounds expensive and hard.

[@tacitdionysus3220]

A suggestion for the future. Use single deck trains for shorter runs and especially where people are often hauling luggage, and double deck trains for longer runs where maximum sitting capacity is preferred (Mind you, I can never remember getting a seat on afternoon DDs in the peak, when boarding any place past the CBD. I'm sick of seeing people struggling with luggage on the airport line, especially at times when it is crowded in the peak. So here's a thought: The city circle line is pretty full of traffic, carrying T2/T8 services (T8s become T2s as they pass through the Circle, and vice versa) and Bankstown line services. The latter will soon be a metro, freeing up spaces on the City Circle for more T2/T8s. Rather than just adding more services on the same pattern, do the following when rolling stock allows: - Have all the (long journey) Campbelltown/Macarthur semi-express services remain double deck and go via Sydenham, (as some peak services already do). People can change to the metro there if they wish. Have them run around the City Circle without going through the airport (using platform 20 at Central to enter and platform 22 to depart. If you want to go through the airport, change at Glenfield or Revesby - Have the (short journey) 'all stops' services (probably 8 tph) from Revesby made up of single deck trains (like the metros, but with a driver and guard) that run through the airport, providing a less crowded and more luggage friendly service. After going through the. City Circle, these become all stops to Homebush turnback. - Have (4 TPH) additional services run from Leppington (or whatever the terminating station becomes on that line) as single deck (moderate distance) semi-express services through the airport to Homebush or Ashfield. These would provide airport services for the Leppington area and (the not likely to be that frequent, but helpful) transfers between KSA and WSI airports. - The aim is to provide a service that is better tailored to specific passenger needs and wants. Economics and consumer needs should always beat tradition and misty nostalgia.

[@gsmadmax100]

G'day from Sydney. I love all the double Decker trains they're awesome .

[@Myrtone]

The Northwest metro was originally planned as suburban rail, with double decker trains but in 2012, the plans were changed and this came with densification of the Northwest, a decsion made by the same government that had the Westconnex tollway on its agenda. They also chose light rail for the central and eastern suburbs instead of metro. That part of Sydney does have enough density for a single deck metro, but is getting a light rail instead.

[@KyrilPG]

I love double deckers! In Paris currently, all but one of the RER lines use double deckers. The B line still has the MI-79 & MI-84 single deck trains with 4 double doors per side. Though, this is going to change in the near future with the arrival of the MI-20 (aka MI-NG), which will be a mixed double-decker, having an alternating succession of shorter single and double deck cars with jacobs bogies, and very large doors. The nearly 150 trains will each allow for 25% more capacity, 20% more seats, and 26% more priority seating. Given the terrible overcrowding on the line, this won't be a luxury... The latest type of RER trains currently in delivery for lines D & E is the RER NG, which is a double decker with single deck end-cab cars and of course, very large doors, plus full open gangway with extra large internal platforms acting as buffer at entry door level. This should allow the same boarding and alighting capacity as a 3-door car. They carry well over 3000 people and will greatly help on line E when the first phase of the Western extension will open in a few weeks, as the line's ridership is expected to double. The weight, acceleration, and deceleration are not an issue... RER trains must be able to depart and clear a +225m long platform in under 23 seconds. That's the basic requirement for most lines. Lines that have a capacity well over 55k per hour per track. Double deckers exist in off-the-shelf models, like the Alstom X'Trapolis, which is a known and tested platform. Though, they are always a bit more customized than Metropolis metro trains. The only real case where double deckers are not the right choice is for a high frequency, "single route" and frequent stop line, i.e. a subway. If the line has branches, this means that the frequency will inevitably be divided among the branches. In that case, double deckers can be very useful to cope with crowds. (Or if the line joins a bunch of others on interlined tracks.)

[@rogue265]

The problem with the 4D was that it was a comeng in a DD skin. And as expected it had appalling reliability, which is essentially the only reason that they weren't adopted on the incredibly peaky Belgrave / Lilydale and Ringwood trains.

[@vintageradio3404]

The reliability with the 4D (a Sydney T-Set with bogies for wide gauge and without the end doors and built by Goninan at Broadmeadow, NSW and not Comeng) was because Melbourne's rail managers had it pulled to pieces to catalogue the parts and then put it back together again, expecting it to work out of the box - it didn't and that poor train was never the same again. Since they had no business doing that, the supplier refused to assist with fault-finding and the train was eventually retired. Some of the parts found their way onto T-sets and the bodies were scrapped as far as I know. All of Sydney's T-sets, except those involved in collisions, are still in service, proving that the train and the concept of AC control was reliable.

[@IonianGarden]

Sydney has express trains that only stops at major stations. For example travelling from Central Station to Newcastle Interchange takes almost 2.5 hours. But there is only 12 stops. I can tell you from many experiences standing on a train from Central to Gosford (over 1hr) is not fun after an exhausting day. Even though it was an 8 car double decker, there still wasn't enough seats.

[@vintageradio3404]

Soon, there will be 10-car D-sets coming your way and the H-sets will have their dunnies removed and be put on suburban services to allow some of the K-sets to be retired. I am not quite sure how they'll work the D-sets on the North Shore Line though, as they are too long to stop at underground stations and St Leonards and Chatswood. Maybe they'll keep some H-sets for Gosford and Wyong?

[@sgbuses]

There is another reason why Sydney Metro was single-deck with many doors - making the loading times quick is the only viable way to make the whole system driverless. Sydney Trains (and NSW TrainLink electrified sections) have trains that are too long and have large curves that do not allow for automation - they have to staff a guard. But obviously this comes at a cost of passengers having to stand for long journeys. But these days with the capitalist trends, operators are incentivised to make long journeys as uncomfortable as possible so that people would pay for a guaranteed premium seat (Japan) or to drive and take some load off the system so less need to be invested (USA).

[@metricstormtrooper]

I remember in the early sixties people used to hang out the doors of the red rattlers as they were packed to the rafters, and when the first double deckers started running, you would mostly be able to find a seat, on the express trains that only stopped at a few stations from seven hills to the city, the time "wasted" by having to slow down and accelerate at the stops and the time taken to load and unload passengers was magically longer at best. They were game changing.

[@kanderson5555]

This completely misses the reason why double decker's exist. Despite de-industrialisation, preference for road freight and closure of the Australian Defence Industries in Sydney, Sydney Trains still shares track and schedule with freight on the suburban network. That means its not possible for metro frequency, so instead it makes up for it in train car capacity. The Bankstown line is able to convert to Metro because freight is already line-separated between Port Botany and the distribution centres at Chullora. Its worth considering to transition Sydney trains to Metro in theory, however more segregation between Sydney trains and the Sydney Freight network is necessary first. Unfortunately a future 'Clearways' Style infrastructure work that does this wont come soon as both State and Federal Gov routinely refuse to fund the Western Sydney Freight Line, nor is there any plan for line segregation between Sydney to the Central Tablelands with a second Blue Mountains crossing and Sydney to port Newcastle with a second Hawkesbury crossing. There is also Inland Rail which could take Melbourne-Brisbane rail freight off the Sydney Suburban Network, however construction on that project has stopped with no future completion date.

[@kyletopfer7818]

Freight doesn't run on the North Shore Line, the Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra (eastern track pair) line, or the Revesby-Airport-City Circle-Inner West sector though, and these are the obvious next candidates for the benefits of Metro-style operations especially as Single Deckers are better suited to the airport passengers and luggage, and in an ideal world the City Underground needs platform screen doors.

[@robman2095]

Higher frequency means higher costs, including Sydney’s high labour costs. Double deckers usually provide high enough volume at lower frequency, hence managing costs. Double decker would not work on the metro where quick stops and frequent services are required, as the increased passengers getting on and off and up and down stairs would slow the passenger boarding and alighting. Single deck trains are more suited to frequent services.

[@bigdude101ohyeah]

I think 3-door single deckers could supplement the fleet, for all-stoppers and shorter distances (send a few to Wollongong and Newcastle for locals). If the Bankstown Metro ends up being successful, convert the T2 (maybe to Bankstown via Regents Park) to Metro.

[@kyletopfer7818]

The Bankstown line currently only gets a train every 15 minutes outside the peak, and only half the stations on the line get a train more often than that in peak. They will now be getting a train every 3 minutes in peak and every 5 minutes during the day, every 10 minutes late at night. Bankstown to Town Hall currently takes 39 minutes running all stops while once the Metro opens Bankstown to Gadigal near Town Hall will be 30 minutes. The Bankstown line is also often the source of many of the disruption and reliability issues on large parts of the network because it forces T4 trains to all merge at Wolli Creek or Sydenham and then it interacts with the T8 and T2 through the City Underground, so removing it and giving the extra capacity to the T8 and T2 plus allowing T4 the full four tracks into the City will smoothe alot of problems on that part of the network and allow better integration with buses. It will be a massive success, why wouldn't it?

[@scanningallvidzs]

​@@kyletopfer7818the freed up room on the city circle will make a massive difference to anyone riding on a line that uses it, if they bring about signalling upgrades as well we'll see even better frequency increases on the trains network too

[@kyletopfer7818]

@@scanningallvidzs Signalling upgrades won't improve frequency that much in the areas around the City as the bigger bottleneck once the Bankstown line moves onto Metro then becomes the double deck trains themselves. Sydney cannot reliably run more than 20 trains per hour through the city, even the extremely busy T1 and T4 can't and the T4 even has an expensive new turnback at Bondi Junction. The only lines that will be using the City Circle after 2024 will be the T2 and T8 - and even then I would be suggesting we should take the T8 East Hills trains out of the City Circle and run them as longer 10-car trains into Central to terminate, and then run the T8 around the counter-clockwise track in of the City Circle as single-deck trains to Revesby as you can then give Airport passengers more doors, more area for luggage, no stairs and install platform screen doors at the narrow and extremely busy Mascot and Green Square stations.

[@RealNotOrrio]

I think double deckers are a good idea on nsw trainlink as they provide more seats and make up for several single track sections on the network perfecr for longer journeys, as for sydney trains making them single decker in the future should be considerd that way they can fit three doors and reduce boarding time

[@doubledee9675]

My train commuting days started in tte early '60's, when all trains were single deck. Peak hours were pretty bad, with few people gaining seats. There was also limited standing space.. Then the double-deck carriages arrived increasing both seating and standing space. Not an ideal solution but the introduction of double-deck power cars did make a noticeable difference. Then air-conditioning and later improvements. There were some interesting quirks with the initial sets of 4 single/4 double-deck carriages. The last carriages of a city-bound train could develop an interesting lean if the train went a bit too fast through the curves between Stanmore and Newtown. That sort of problem has been settled for many decades. The windows of the Tangaras had their own issues - those on the upper-deck being particularly difficult to see out of on wet nights. With no announcements, travel home could be a bit of a problem. The next design effectively dealt with this. Although I retired a dozen years ago, I still catch trains several times a week and plan to continue.

[@afs5609]

correction the load gauge/profile that allowed the upgrade from single to double deck rolling stock was decided back in 1910 when the decision to convert the then suburban rail network from steam to electric traction, the existing load gauge for the then rail network, later referred to as "narrow gauge", was upgraded to "wide gauge" to allow for wider rolling stock, it had nothing to do with the then existing steam locomotive fleet profile, as for the "modern" single deck metro, it was planned back in the late 1970's early 80's to use double deck rolling stock as well, two sections of the planned outer western network were completed to the wide gauge profile one is still in use, Leppington to Glenfield, the other section now part of the Metro Epping Chatswood was converted (platforms) back to "narrow gauge".

[@rogue265]

You could make the Inner West line, Hurstville and East Hills lines as single deck trains only, and the North Shore line as a hybrid line, and the rest as DD lines, and that makes the lines pretty clearly delinated metro/suburban

[@anonymous3738]

In my opinion, more densely populated cities, particularly those in Asia should use trains like these. Double decker trains increase capacity without having to extend the trains and platforms. In India, for example, passengers often sit on the roof of trains during rush hour, which is incredibly dangerous.

[@danieleyre8913]

Double deckers have longer dwell times; more people have to get on and off, and that slows everything down. That’s not such a problem for longer distance services, but is is a massive problem for dense, short distance stop patterned services. The T3 is being switched to a metro operation. The same should probably happen for the inner west line as far as Strathfield. And maybe the North shore line as far as Hornsby.

[@certifiedfrogenjoyer1891]

Could maybe see single level being used on T2 Inner West & maybe T8 to Revesby. The rest of the lines are too darn long (and our double-deckers are relatively comfy for longer commutes).

[@kyletopfer7818]

What does this mean though? Are you worried about seats or what? Take a closer look. Sydney Metro 8-car train = 504 seats Sydney Trains Waratah train = 880 seats Sydney Metro seating capacity: 504 seats x 36 trains per hour = 18,144 seats per hour per direction Sydney Trains line seating capacity: 880 seats x 20 trains per hour = 17,600 per hour per direction Sydney Metro line capacity: 1,466 passengers x 36 trains per hour = 52,776 per hour per direction Sydney Trains line capacity: 1200 passengers x 20 trains per hour = 24,000 per hour per direction

[@oufukubinta]

I have no emotional attachment to Sydney's trains and I've been living here for 17 years. If you've every been to any other developed country there's no way you can love Sydney's trains or the poor service. They need faster trains with a much higher frequency, more doors, longer platforms and that they're reliable. You can't have reliability if the heavy trains damage the tracks faster than they can keep up with fixing them and they should fix them only at night instead of cutting off the west every weekend by shutting down the T1 line

[@vintageradio3404]

A double-deck train is only a few tonnes heavier than a single-deck one. There is more to wear and tear than weight. It is also the number of trains using the rails. Double-deck trains were introduced so that more people could fit on a given number of services. A few lines on Sydney's network has no more room for extra trains, so the trains have to hold more people. For the most part, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the service or the trains. The A and B sets are Australia's most reliable trains and are subject to the most intense preventative maintenance programme in the country and they have the highest uptimes. The idea that T1 is shut down every weekend is just abject nonsense.

[@lars7935]

Double deck trains have long dwell times, are hard to make accessible and bad for people with luggage. Single deck trains are the preferred solution for me any day with some notable exceptions. Cafe cars, long distance and sleeper trains and first class seating in regional trains make perfect sense as double deckers as long as accessebility is not comporomised and circulation is sufficient for short dwell times.

[@ThomasNing]

I do think the extra seats are a great advantage for the medium-longer trips, especially compared to somewhere like Japan which still uses single deck side seating for relatively long distance express trains (~2hr). However, I think with modern signalling upgrades, that slight capacity increase over single deck probably won't exist anymore. As a side note, I can't source this, but I head that city circle stations used to be able to run back to back into stations, where a train could enter the platform as the one ahead is leaving, resulting in effectively 60-90s catch-up headway.

[@CityConnectionsMedia]

You're completely correct on your side note. They used a system of trip cocks to keep trains apart, and they could achieve 48tph. You can find the details on it on the Wikipedia page for NSW railway signalling, or in one of Bradfields reports. They still have the tripcocks and signal aspect (low-speed) but they removed the functionality in the 90s due to safety concerns.

[@Reaper1770]

Sydney network has never been limited by DD trains. It been limited by crappy signalling at the best of time and at the worse the lack of investment in making the tracks better. You could put a comeng set but you still have the same bottlenecks in the system

[@ThomasNing]

@@Reaper1770 true, but it is a fact that a single deck train will pull in, unload, load, and pull away faster. The faster you can clear the block, the faster the next train can come. This is true regardless of signalling system, I believe. Whether or not it's enough of a factor to alleviate the city circle bottleneck is not of my knowledge.

[@OutermostGold]

@@ThomasNing Are you daft? Trains cycle usually within 30 seconds unless there is a numpty holding the doors... we all know the sorts to do it too.

[@ThomasNing]

@@OutermostGold next time you're at central and the trains are running late (so the trains are running close as possible to catch up), time the amount of time between each train, between the moment each opens their door. It's not going to be as low as 30s at the best of times, let alone during peak, even if you exclude anyone holding the doors. (Also, the less time the doors are open, and the more frequent the trains run, the less likely it is that someone will be able to/want to run towards the closing doors.

[@brettyallop6018]

Good video!

[@lorenzlorenzo1975]

Sydney was ahead of its time when it introduced double-decker trains 50 years ago. With its population steadily growing, it wouldn't make sense to shift to single deck carriages.

[@Subh8081]

Double decker trains offer almost double sitting space and more than double standing space per coach compared to single level trains. So why not? I would love to see these trains continue.

[@evangiles4403]

The problem is not altering tunnels or other infrastructure it's the distance between the signals when they built the system they didn't leave enough distance so a 50 wagon train is pushing the limits

[@enacht]

In Zurich, Switzerland, the S-Bahn also uses double decker trains (but not with reversible seats).

[@tacitdionysus3220]

The decision to go double deck was economic. It enabled the capacity of trains to be increased without needing longer platforms at numerous stations, or increasing their frequency through better braking systems, motors and signalling. It wasn't some grand design thought through with years of contemplation, just a sudden stroke of cost saving inspiration at a time when Australia had a far less impressive GDP. One very clear memory I have is of people loading differently in peak hour single versus DD trains. In the single deckers lots of people often moved well into the main part of the carriage. In double deckers many fewer did that; more tended to stay in the vestibule areas than climbing or descending the stairs. In spite of better tracks, signalling systems and power supplies, the trains of today are about 10% slower over most Sydney routes than they were before DDs were common. BTW Bradfield designed the SD trains to be a bit larger in loading gauge to facilitate 5 abreast seating in the suburbs. Country trains retained the smaller LG, which is why you sometimes get problems when suburban stock meets tighter tunnels, like in the western Blue Mountains. The suggestion that double deckers allow more people to sit for the entire journey is a furphy. As numbers of passengers increased it again became just as common for many people to have to stand for much of their journey, until the crowd thins out well into the suburbs. I've done several different commutes in my working life, and I can't remember any where I would get a seat until about 75% through the journey in at least one direction. It was always especially bad whenever petrol prices were high and more people used trains. My thoughts are - On an operational basis, DDs work fine on longer routes, like inter-city and long outer suburban services. Single deck trains are better for shorter to medium runs. I suspect the price difference between the more 'off the shelf' SDs and the more expensive 'bespoke' DDs has made the break even point increasingly favour the SDs. SDs can do the longer runs too, just with different seating arrangements. While DDs have a place, there would be much sense in using modern SDs to a greater extent on suburban Sydney Trains tracks. On some lines (e.g. through the Airport stations) they would meet 'passenger with luggage' needs far better than DDs). The main resistance is industrial, but using off-the-shelf SD trains with drivers and guards, and combinations of lateral and longitudinal seating (like in the older Tuscan SD trains - don't call them 'red rattlers') would take the wind out of most objections. Somebody somewhere in the rail system must have done some sums on the relative economics. One day when push comes to shove, they will be trotted out to justify the change. Three other observations: 1 - NSW is soon getting single deck electric trains (sort of) - the XPT / XPL / END replacements can use overhead supply in the suburbs, or diesel power generation in the countryside. 2 - Extra lines are the real long term solution. The Eastern Suburbs and Airports lines did some of the work, but the new Metro will make an even bigger difference (and people will soon notice that (i) it is much faster and (ii) when something goes wrong, there are more choices for getting out of the CBD than just one system.) 3 - The systems need to recognise that not everyone wants to commute to/from the harbour city any more. Western Sydney now has a bigger population than the rest. It needs its own system centred on its own needs. The Cumberland Line was a weak gesture. The WSI Metro will solidify a north/south corridor in Western Sydney, take some pressure off the M7, and generate the independent development as Greater Sydney's real powerhouse (in spite of tardiness by government in approving developments). 4 - The other 'elephant in the room' is the switch to the superior and cheaper 25kv power supply over legacy 1500v DC. AC power inputs into the system are needed much less frequently, and all the steel and copper infrastructure is much lighter and less expensive. I note the WSI and Western Metros will be using 25kv systems - to the horror of the 'it must be standardised' fans - my reaction is "it's about bloody time we started!" I wonder if some will insist any HSR must also be 1500v too (sigh!).

[@juliegraham7109]

Back in the 1970 and the 1980s when i was comming to sydney over the school holidays . Have seen the diffrant how many people could be on the old red rattlers to the new double deckers trains.

[@brianmorris8045]

Yes, it should stick to the double deckers. They are part of the system. Just because the new metro train line has the single deckers, due to the smaller tube, doesn't mean all the trains should be., The new trainlines are meant to supplement the suburban rail system, not replace it.Let the metro do it's job, and let the double deckers do the real job of mass moving passenger loads back to the suburbs at the end of the day.

[@dieseldavetrains8988]

Having been to Melbourne a few times, I find their multi door single deck suburban trains unload & load passengers quicker than the double deckers in Sydney. The Metro rail in Sydney went single deck and limited seating for that very reason, quick unload and loading and thus less dwell time at the platform. You only have to watch the morning peak at Town Hall station's platform-3 to see how passenger movements are slower on double deck trains. India is creasing its double decker fleet for intercity work but are hauled by electric loco's.

[@vintageradio3404]

Dwell times are greater in Sydney simply because more people use Sydney's trains. When your rail journey is short, a quick on and off may be a priority but most passengers have long journeys and want comfort and dwell times are not important because the longer trips involve skipping many stations. The Western Line has six tracks between Central and Strathfield. 2 for all-stations trains, 2 for fast services, stopping only at Strathfield, Burwood, Redfern and Central and 2 for intercity and regional services. It is Australia's busiest rail corridor. Double deck trains can only have two sets of doors for obvious reasons but the doors on Sydney's fleet are wider than Melbourne's.

[@yianniathanasopoulos]

Sydney Metro also chose the single decker rolling stock because the tunnels they built are smaller in radius and the double deckers don’t fit

[@kyletopfer7818]

Which given Sydney Metro is getting close to 100km probably saved many millions in just reduced tunnelling costs alone.

[@johnd4697]

what the speed limit for train to go in sydney ?@@kyletopfer7818

[@JohnMcPherson-kk9xf]

@@kyletopfer7818 Rubbish. Slightly larger diameter tunnels would be built with same number of wall panels (each one slightly longer), using same type, boring machine. The aim was to future proof metro lines against double deck rolling stock which the coalition government had an ideological position against. Upgrading overhead wiring to 25kv would be entirely possible, for increased power and acceleration.

[@kyletopfer7818]

@@JohnMcPherson-kk9xf No, Experts have suggested buying smaller diameter TBMs and boring smaller diameter holes saves Money over a longer tunneled section. Also single deck Metro trains can handle a more challenging alignment so were able to build the new under harbour section with shallower stations which also saved money and made the Project viable, heavy slow Double deckers trying to get under the harbour would have been a disaster. If you are building a whole new Line which can be segregated from all the myriad of faults that plague and cripple the existing system, why would you not use the best available technology (automated high capacity single deck Metro trains) for the Job, thats not ideological - you can say you like Double deck trains If you want but you have to at least be honest with yourself that they have a Stack of shortcomings and faults which makes them less useful or appropriate for the new lines being built, as well as the inner sections of the existing Network (Inner West, Airport, North Shore, Bankstown and Hurstville Lines).

[@omgski]

Yes bc it's iconic and gives the city character

[@timor64]

They are good for stations spread out a long way, and for longer journeys They are not good for short journeys with stations close together

[@andrewrollason4963]

Sydney is massive; which means that they are fit for purpose.

[@Sydney_Mapz]

As someone from Sydney, getting rid of double-decker trains would be a war crime.

[@AndrewJohnsonAus]

The ABC fact check should not be trusted. In their comparison they counted single deck trains at only 26 trains per hour. Sydney Metro should have no trouble reaching 30 trains per hour. Other single deck metros such as the Victoria line as you mentioned in the video gets to 36.

[@moover123]

Where I live in europe they have a similar discuission, but they can't just get rid of double deckers due to capacity issues.

[@AussieGunzel]

Here's something interesting to also look at when it's metro with 3 or 4 doors per carriage can also become useless on really sharp curved platforms so yeah what's the point if the middle door becomes useless due to the extra gap between the carriage and door.

[@Norry218]

The Sydney system is iconicly double deck and moving away from that would be a shift away from something that works. Before the former state government turned the north west metro into a single level metro they had committed to keeping it double deck trains in keeping with the rest of the system, Then once they saw they could get rid of drivers and guards and use smaller tunnel boring machines to make the system incompatible they couldn't resist and thus now Sydney has an obsession with metros and few if any rail projects on the horizon that maintain the Double Deck trains.

[@vintageradio3404]

The advantage of metro rail is the driverless aspect - no more strike action to cripple people. Whilst I support retention of the heavy rail system and believe both heavy and metro can work well together, there can be no denying that the presence of metro rail will reduce the political power of the RTBU and mean less chance of network-wide strikes in future. That can only be a good thing. The metro network will not be as far-reaching as the heavy rail network so focusing on everyone having a seat is not as important.

[@Gary-vv5gt]

The flaw with making nwrl with double decker is the limited amount of dd trains its can operate between chatsy and harbor bridge. And a tunnel under the harbor will not work unless if bangaroo and nth syd is ditched. Not the best i could say, but i feel its a better option that a double decker ether limited in capacity (such as 2 tph during peak from nwrl to city due to harbor bridge constraints and heaps of north shore services) or an super deep underground harbor tunnel which will miss 2 major points (north syd and bangaroo).

[@carisi2k11]

The only problem that Sydney trains has with alighting and boarding is in the city circle where the old school stations with limited platform space and multiple destinations causes traffic build up and problems getting people on and off the train. The 2 doors on our DD are the equivalent of 4 doors on most metro systems and on stations where platform space isn't an issue the trains can decant there entire patronage easily within 30 seconds.

[@antontsau]

first question is - how we plan to use DD trains? As suburban/S-bahn (once loaded - 30-60 min ride with 10 stops, most of passengers sit, even if it travels to the very centre of city) or metro/U-bahn (stops every 500-1000m, average ride 10 min, most of passengers stand even if it travels to far outskirts, airport and so on). Sydney network is definitely of suburban type, metro mode presents only around city. In fact I think that SD trains for Sydney Metro is weird choice as it is not the metro at all but typical Sbahn with line stretched thru the whole Sydney, 40 km. Also DD trains as suburban/regional trains used in many places. US and Germany use them even with diesel locos, very low acceleration and mechanical braking only, and do not plan to abandon this practice.

[@xtrapolis954m]

The RER A uses double deck trains with three doors per side - I wonder if this is something Sydney would have the appetite for to decrease dwell times at stations?

[@vintageradio3404]

The concept would not work. Sydney's double deck cars are roughly the same length as the previous single deck cars and are two short to be double deck with three doors. The added sets of stairs would make building them a pointless exercise.

[@angusmccarthy9507]

The cons mentioned aren't really correct. The 0.8 m/s2 acceleration is due to comfort, I remember reading that they can push 1.2 like the Tube however most people found it uncomfortable (makes moving around difficult). So they trains can actually give it a bit of beans when it comes to moving. Also heard that they're capable of reaching 160 km/h top speed but are limited to 115. The cost isn't really much of an issue so long as they are built in Australia, the money goes into union workshops and subsequently gets injected back into the economy and recouped through any and every form of taxation and Opal fares. Buying trains from China like with the Waratah's takes money out of circulation and into a country with gross human rights violations and Winnie the Pooh for a president.

[@PeterCant]

I always thought it was weird that they put single decker, standing-room-heavy, inner-city-suited, metro style trains all the way out to Castle-fricking-Hill. That's a long way to be standing up.

[@mr.jamster8414]

And screwed up the Bankstown line by splitting it into two and getting rid of the Express services which they listed as an "Upgrade"?

[@australiasindustrialage689]

The biggest drawback with double-deck trains is that they have longer dwell times at stations. Another benefit is that they have lower crewing costs, because a dd train can carry more people per set meaning that the cost to provide crews decreasing. A benefit of metro trains is that they are automated, meaning that the operational costs are the same regardless of the number of services that you run. SD trains can run more frequently, E.G the Sydney Harbour Bridge was designed to carry 40 trains per hours in peak periods, with services running 90 seconds apart. DD trains can only ran about 3 mins apart, which is less convenient for passengers. As for the fact check, why couldn't the single-deck sets be extended to ten cars and platforms be lengthened to convey the longer services? You would have to check what service the ABC used as a model for the study. Single-deck trains up to 12 cars operate in Japan. As for the solution, I would suggest that expresses to Penrith, Campbelltown and Wyong should remain as DD trains, whereas stopping trains to Bankstown, Parramatta, Hurstville etc should be SD trains.

[@BDub2024]

The new Perth trains have less seats and more doors. For quick entry and exit to make trips quicker. Already the trains are narrower.

[@MichaelBeeny]

Do the double decker trains suffer from a more uncomfortable ride on the upper deck due to more swaying and general movement, like double decker buses can?

[@kygladdish2554]

Double decker for the win - except on the airport line! Double decker doesn’t work with all that luggage and the vestibule area is just too Small for everyone

[@tintin_999]

I wish there were big enough tunnels in Sydney that you could have double decker trains with doors on both levels (plus two platforms at each station, one on top of the other). Yes this would make the tunnels and station heights a bit bigger. But it could also allow the building of shorter underground stations which could cut costs. Or it could allow twice the capacity for the same frequencies as a single deck train on the same line. New carbon fiber bogies could counter the weight increase

[@Kenso53]

Automated trains, whether single or double deck, require no driver/guard..hence no RTBU employees. No, I'm not bagging RTBU, I was a member for decades.

[@rhettcorbett3346]

Sydney needs DD trains.If you have single deck trains you would have to make them twice as long or double the trains to carry the same amount of passengers.

[@OwlGreene]

If the headways are good enough, you don't have to worry about double-decker trains. Singles will get the job done just fine as long as the trains come fast (often) enough. Double decks made a lot more sense back when they were first ordered because I'm sure the headways were a lot lower then.

[@cobindel]

yess, is that even a question, they fit more people and we’re one of the only cities that have them

[@camboi6103]

fun fact with the waratahs: they are designed for quick acceleration and stopping

[@rotorookie]

Agreed, the Sydney double deckers don't accelerate quickly. Would you be able to provide acceleration figures for the Sydney Metro trains? Feels like there's a big difference.

[@closeben]

How hard would it be to mix and match carriage types? Say on the front and back of the train have an accessibility carriage which is single deck with fold down chairs.

[@vintageradio3404]

It wouldn't work. Disabled access is usually via lifts and at most stations the lifts are not at the end of the platforms but closer to the middle. There are exceptions, such as Central and the former Chatswood-Epping line stations but most stations are built differently.

[@brianmorris8045]

Updated signalling is a great idea by all means.

[@Gary-vv5gt]

I think sydney can mix it up on the current sydney train network (even without the metro). I think inner city (such as homebush to cbd all stops) should be single decker or double deckers with more doors (will have less seats tho).

[@FlamencoOz]

Keep the double deckers. I take Northwest Metro and frankly single level isn't enough, especially with all the extra apartments they'll be building along that line.

[@carisi2k11]

Getting rid of them won't help because then you lose capacity. The reasons the previous government chose Metro was not a capability reason. It was a ploy to destroy unionised labor and hence why they are driverless. However Metro run out to new areas is likely to be the best option going forward because of it's accessibility for the disabled. The big and heavy thing is not really a thing. yeah they are 10t heavier per carriage (waratah vs metro) but they have plenty of power to accelerate and the main issue is the platform speeds because of the lack of screen doors. Especially in the city circle where platforms can be quite crowded.

[@andrewsmith2591]

If single decker trains were introduced into the double decker network it would actually reduce capacity. The single decker's would still be limited in frequency. They would have to fit into the frequency and time-tabling of the existing double decker trains and so any reduced boarding times would not have any benefit. Where new metro lines are built or existing lines are converted into metro lines then single decker trains would make sense

[@Secretlyanothername]

Should get rid of the double deckers and drivers and everyone else and convert the entire system to automated metro with platform screen doors.

[@fictillius]

Sydney Metro can move over 46,000 pax per hour. So it has higher capacity.

[@Roddles]

No need to read out A,B or C in video script. Also a nice light on your face will increase your production value. Otherwise good video. Thanks

[@LetterboxFrog]

Double-decker trains are crap if you're heading out to the airport during peak hour and your have luggage. Not so bad going from Parramatta to Central - plenty of time to arrange yourseld, but Central to the Airport is an absolutely miserable squeeze

[@cee2615]

When you have an hour and a half trip between the city and outer suburbs, you are grateful for the additional seating.

[@nightowldickson]

6:01 plus more seats for passengers

[@chrismckellar9350]

There is a saying, 'if works don't fix it'. Sydney double deck trains have proven they meet the the requirements of longer cross city metro routes where where the new high capacity 'metro' trains will cater for shorter high density cross city routes. Both actually compliment each other.

[@kyletopfer7818]

It doesn't work, to name just a few: -problems on the Sydney Trains network cascade throughout the network and bring it to severe diruption regularly; -disabled people and people with prams or bikes are confined to a small little vestibule areas where hundreds are trying to squeeze past at major stations; -the City Underground platforms and Airport Line are too small and can't deal with peak hour crowds; -trains on the core lines closer to the city have operating speeds significantly slower than back when single deck trains were still running around (speeds aren't entirely the double decker trains' fault but converting to Metro some of the strategic routes that don't share with freight, eg. the North Shore, the Inner West, City Circle, Airport line to Revesby, Eastern Suburbs-Illawarra line to Hurstville, would be much better if run by single deckers)

[@vintageradio3404]

@@kyletopfer7818 Bikes shouldn't be allowed on trains in peak periods. (They aren't allowed on trams or buses) If people want to ride to work they should stay in the saddle for the whole journey. That would fix half of what is ultimately a very small problem. Passenger comfort has always received a higher priority and that is what most Sydneysiders expect. There are only two small vestibules - one at each end of the train, due to the need to accomodate the driver/guard compartments. The others are the same size as they were in 1926 on single-deck trains and seat exactly the same number of people.

[@kyletopfer7818]

@@vintageradio3404 1) Bikes are allowed on Sydney trams. Very few riders actually want to take their bikes on during busy periods, it's not an experience most people want. 2) A small problem it is not - anyone not easily capable of getting down the stairs on a busy moving train with whomever they are travelling (kids, elderly, sick, injured etc) being confined to a small little vestibule area for their entire trip when in a Metro-style train they can easily move down the entire length of the train. 3) Silly me - here I was thinking train carriage design had moved on since before the Great Depression!

[@vintageradio3404]

@@kyletopfer7818 In peak times, bikes get refused access on trams and for good reason, they are for passengers, not unfit tryhards with bikes. I generalised a bit there because it is peak periods we are talking about here. The problem with vestibules IS small. As I said most of the vestibules are large and they are the same size as they were on the first electric trains in 1926. Not everyone who gets on a train has a pram or a wheelchair, but there is sufficient reserved seating in the vestibules for these passengers and able-bods are required by law to give way to them. A crush capacity of 2,000 is not theoretical as you have claimed elsewhere in your scatter of misinformation. TFNSW makes that capacity claim directly on its website in several locations and people counters on the A and B-sets verify this. Just admit that you have a hatred of double deckers. That's fine if you do, we do live in a democracy. But that doesn't justify the nonsense you are spreading.

[@sanuthweerasinghe7825]

while sydneys double decker trains make sense because they serve longer suburban routes which are further apart that bring people into the city, it shouldnt be the only type of suburban train. having single level rolling stock for some shorter distance stopping services makes a lot of sense and would help bridge the gap between sydney metro and sydney trains.

[@karlcx]

I certainly don’t want to stand on a journey any longer than a few minutes.

[@JaidenJimenez86]

I recently visited Sydney and I love these trains. They can carry so many people, have loads of space for wheelchairs, and are designed in a way that boarding is super quick.

[@waitawhileexplorer3904]

Why not?

[@JohnJohn-ts6ux]

Thank you for the video I just subscribe on your channel, but one very good point about single Deckers, is people facing you and there are people coughing ,sneezing,😢😢😢🥺 they don't think about the community about safety germs on people have what about there's another outbreak like the coronavirus, thanks again hope you respond

[@r-labs9357]

Oh yea don’t forget the Sydney trains give you that feeling that you are on like a double decker metro train

In Paris, we are gradually moving ti have all of our RERs with double decker trains. In fact, only one line is not using double decker (DD). All the problems cited are valid but are not inherent to DD trains. Paris RER A had DD trains with three doors per coach, they are monsters in term of acceleration at 1.1 m/s, equivalent to SD trains. In Paris, the change from SD to DD trains in the RER A was a real game changer for what is the busiest line in the world outside of Asia. So, the conclusion is that probably your DD trains are not well designed and not efficient.

[@vintageradio3404]

The form factor for Sydney's trains has been in place for 50 years and the double-deck EMU is an Australian invention, more to the point, entirely a Sydney invention. It was a case of building a train to suit its network, not the other way around as many other cities had the opportunity to do. On a good day, and there's lots of them, Sydney's heavy rail network serves us well. No rail network anywhere in the world has a fault-free system. That is simply not possible. Trains and supporting infrastructure are extremely complex and there will always be times when things don't go well on a given day. Unless someone has come to Sydney and ridden the trains, they aren't in a position to accurately assess things like efficiency or design. Sydney's suburban and intercity rail networks are 100% double-deck and we are talking hundreds of trains and thousands of carriages. Something that big doesn't get such a large commitment if design and efficiency are bad.

@@vintageradio3404 what I meant in my previous message is that there is a problem with how Sidney's DD trains are designed, not necessarily a problem with DD trains altogether. I understand your point. But again, Paris RER system is moving to be a 100% double deck trains network and which represents 600 DD trains. But, crucially, each line has a model tailored for the need. The RER A stops frequently and carries a lot of passengers so they opted for coaches with 3 large doors each and lightning fast accelerations whilst, the RER C and D have more comfortable trains with less doors as they travel longer distances. So my question was to understand why Sidney has decided to not design more efficient DD trains?

[@Gary-vv5gt]

I think sydney can adopt the 3 door DD model from paris and use it on heavy dense all stops areas (such as the all stopper to parra/blacktown to cbd via T1 or T2.) Also triple the tracks between grandville and homebush would help. So maybe have the 3 door dd model running reserby via airport and run city circle to westmead or blacktown all stops. Then move the express ctown/macatur services via sydeham once btown metro is operation and those express terminating at central terminal. Also some stops on t1 between blacktown and city can be ditched altogether since its served by the all stops 3 door model. Maybe 5 stops (such as redfern, stratty, parra, westmead and blacktown). But that will require 6 tracks between grandville and homebush.

[@alaindumas1824]

@@vintageradio3404One doesn't need to visit Sidney to understand that your DD are underpowered (7.35 kw/ton Tangaras; 8.73 kw/t Millennium; 7.96 kw/t OSCAR; 7.19 kw/t Waratah) in comparison with the trains seen on the RER (13.78 kw/t MI79 or 84; 13.54 kw/t MI2N Alteo) or Italian TAF DD (13.33 kw/t). I suspect the problem lies in Sydney's power supply.

[@vintageradio3404]

@ There is nothing wrong with the acceleration of Sydney's trains. few get on a train with a stopwatch to see if a competing model is a 10th of a second faster and no-one cares that much. Harder acceleration just puts more strain on the electrical network and with the line voltage being 1,500V so current draw from the system is a lot higher. 99% of Sydney's heavy rail network is flat, with the steepest part of the whole system being a flyover junction just west of Strathfield where the Main North Line begins. Trains cannot go fast on that as there is a tight turn included. The only time acceleration was an issue was when it was discovered that T-sets could not travel on the fairly steep portion of the former Chatswood-Epping line. I am not sure what they did to fix that but fixed it was. As mentioned elsewhere, Sydney's first double-deck train was introduced in 1964. It was a test train consisting of four trailers and four motors, with each motor having traction supplied by different manufacturers for testing purposes. The suppliers were English Elecric, Hitachi, Mistubishi and Toshiba. The motors were retired after a short time and the factory continued to produce trailers which ran with the single deck motors on the S-sets. Over time, as single deck trains were removed from the system people got used to the double deckers in the form they were manufactured in and that was stuck with. I just looked at a photo of the three door double decker used in Paris. I don't understand how this could possibly be employed in Sydney whilst expecting to keep the same crush capacity. The vestibules are smaller and appear to contain no seating for disabled people and the saloon floors are split by the middle vestibule. To me that makes little sense. We'd be going backwards. In the way double deckers were introduced in Sydney, no platforms or other infrastructure needed modification. Equipment layout is also very efficient with pantographs being set inside voids and air conditioning evaporators and condensers set above vestibules where there are no pantographs.

[@mattmuschalik1348]

Of course Sydney should keep its double deckers. It was a wrong decision by Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian to downgrade the Chatswood - Epping tunnel for driverless metros because this reduced operational flexibility. If single deckers (and the newly built tunnels) had been made compatible with double deckers there would not have been that problem. Metros in the classical sense stop every km or so and have a different function to heavy rail with stops every 2.5 kms or so. Gladys had no idea that there is an urban rail hierarchy in which metros have to fit. We have also learned that the metro rolling stock on different lines are not compatible, which of course should have been avoided. The NSW government is just inexperienced because none of the Transport Ministers have ever lived longer in a European city to understand how urban rail works properly

[@Gary-vv5gt]

Only flaw was ether the nrwl being heavily restricted to how its going to operate to cbd (its ether terminate north shore north of chatsy or nrwl), due to the frequency limitations on harbor bridge. Or a deep ass tunnel which will have no chance of stopping at nth syd or bangaroo. So a metro is somewhat of a better comprise.

[@iqbang9236]

Metro beats the double-decker on speed, acceleration, auto drive, and quick on/off. It is the choice of modern subways around the world. The double-decker beats the Metro in long-haul, interstate services.

[@davidhauser2665]

The Liberal nongs went with 6 car single deck metros when the platforms were already 8 cars from Chatswood ro Epping

[@shadowgaming6660]

Why not have 16 carriage trains, sure they could be too long for some platforms, but this is something that there's already procedures for (SP6, SP4) etc. With the way multiple units work, a 16 carriage train won't accelerate any slower or brake any slower than an 8 carriage train.

[@vintageradio3404]

True - same percentage of motors and trailers means no difference to stop and go. The problem is that every station except Platforms 1-3 at Central are too short for them. The D sets are 10-car trains but they don't run at the sme frequencies as suburban trains and most platforms they stop at will already accept them as the V set cars are longer than all other trains.

[@michaelgask]

Thanks, CityMoose. Great video. That combo of single-deckers for the newer metro systems and retaining the double-deckers for the legacy network seems to work well, for the reasons you highlight. And those doubles are iconic: would be a shame if they disappeared.

[@woohooboy]

Sydney works well with double decker carriages. I prefer them over the single level metro carriages which although newer, personally feels like a step back.

[@kyletopfer7818]

In what way are Metro trains a step back? They are: -significantly faster (average speeds are about 50% faster across the Metro network than the Sydney Trains network, acceleration to get under the Harbour and up to station depth is far superior) -safer (no gap between platform and train; no driver error; screen doors stop people falling on tracks or getting hit by train and no rubbish or items can fall into rail corridor; less disruption as a result of platform screen doors; you can see down the entire length of the Metro train and instead of sitting in a driver compartment staff are redeployed to walk through the train and patrol stations regularly so anyone getting attacked or threatened has more chance of help) -Metro can run more trains much more cheaply (36 trains per hour versus maximum 20 trains per hour on Sydney Trains in the peak, 12 trains per hour during the day on Metro versus mostly 4 or 6 trains per hour on Sydney Trains)

[@Gary-vv5gt]

@@kyletopfer7818 i think metro is good for the nwrl case, as much as its seem a bit suitable for dd operations, theres far too much flaws between chatswood and harbor bridge. Its would ether need to be heavily limited if is going to share with north shore line and as low as 2tph per hour during peak which go to the cbd. Or if the tunnel option was went with, nth syd and bangaroo station wouldn't exist due to the nature of the line being hugely deeper than the metro counterpart.