Kevin Martin

Uncle Joe wrote:
>> Doesn't look that unique to me... We have more in common with a number
>> of other Urban railways I've ridden than we are different. Many of them
>> are now DOO.
>
> The ones I have ridden overseas have all been true Metro Style, Single
> deckers with more doors that allow people to get on and off quicker. Where
> are the ones that are like ours in size etc, I would like to research these
> systems.
>
Am I missing something here? What is the link between DD trains and
whether or not they are DOO?

Surely the doors are where people get out of and the doors are all at
platform level regardless of whether SD or DD.

We are talking about a single guard who cannot check all doorways for
smooth flow. We are also not talking about slam door stock (like British
Rail's old stock) where platform staff were required to check doors were
closed before giving "Right way".

>
>> Claiming something can be done as 'we are unique' is just 'not invented
>> here' syndrome repackaged. Every rail system can claim it's unique, as
>> each has some historical or geographical reason for being different. But
>> far to often it's used as an argument for keeping to status quo or re-
>> inventing something at great cost (Tcard).
>
> They can't get any new technology to work within the timeframe they
> origanlly want, DOO will be the same. Our uniqueness means what works in
> London, Washington etc may not work safely on our system
>
Uniqueness sounds like an excuse for not doing something. Does not mean
guards ought to go, but shows that all things ought to be considered.

Melbourne lost its guards years ago, but the number of monitors with
their attendant screens and shutters on curved platforms (to suit
different length trains, does not mean that cutting guards saves all
their alleged costs. There are benefits of keeping them.

Kevin Martin