The Comeng proposal in the mid-1980s for the Tangara double deck train is contained in the late John Dunn's book "Comeng - The History of Commonwealth Engineering - VOL.5 - 1985 to 1990 (Plus ABB, Adtranz and Bombardier to 2012)". Rosenberg Publishing Pty Ltd, 2013; pp18-30. Reference includes drawings for a 165-seat driving car and a 174-seat non-driving vehicle.

The Comeng proposal in the mid-1980s for the Tangara double deck train is contained in the late John Dunn's book "Comeng - The History of Commonwealth Engineering - VOL.5 - 1985 to 1990 (Plus ABB, Adtranz and Bombardier to 2012)". Rosenberg Publishing Pty Ltd, 2013; pp18-30. Reference includes drawings for a 165-seat driving car and a 174-seat non-driving vehicle.

It was an absolutely hideous looking concept. Nothing more than a Tangara like front tacked onto a V set. The only worthwhile thing Greiner did was cancel this monstrosity.

It was an absolutely hideous looking concept. Nothing more than a Tangara like front tacked onto a V set. The only worthwhile thing Greiner did was cancel this monstrosity.

Was that the one that had that weird looking fibreglass on the front of a K set car in 1986 to showcase what the new Tangara 'might look like'?

EDIT = This is what I mean (skip to around 0:56).


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pyfG3a_kLE4

Forgot to add video link.

Was that the one that had that weird looking fibreglass on the front of a K set car in 1986 to showcase what the new Tangara 'might look like'?

EDIT = This is what I mean (skip to around 0:56).


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pyfG3a_kLE4

Forgot to add video link.

no. this is the passenger flow test. At around 6:40. theres a lets call a 3d rendering/drawing of the train


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otTJfKcmF-s

Thanks fixitguy. Yeah that design does look pretty crappy. But, I do have to applaud Comeng's way of futurism in that design aswell.

Has anybody seen the Comeng mockup for the K set from 1979? It's basically a half V set/half S set, and an elevated cab, similar to the Jumbo 2100 class suburban trains in Adelaide.

EDIT = Spelling errors.

google books has the Tangara chapter of the Comeng history showing the many international designs for the exterior looks and also the comeng designs as well as their story on the contract

edit. fixed link
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=fc5UAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=comeng+mockup+train&source=bl&ots=hoVSYIE3Jz&sig=-ko59ZQfR6pdFch64enLLKzH2rs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kEu1UpTnDMTgkAXl5oDYCg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=comeng%20mockup%20train&f=false

Bad link fixit...

It was an absolutely hideous looking concept. Nothing more than a Tangara like front tacked onto a V set. The only worthwhile thing Greiner did was cancel this monstrosity.

I think you are confusing two separate proposals there:

Comeng tendered long cars for the Tangara suburban order and this is what was being discussed in the video. I don't think anyone will argue that the Goninan Tangara was less ugly than the Comeng design and has worked fairly well, although it might have cost more per passenger than the narrower longer cars.

In addition, it was proposed that Tangara styling would be applied to the DKM/DKT V set cars. When this order was cut back the 14 cars built appeared looking like standard V sets which was an improvement on the proposed design.

M636C

I don't kmow why they didn't buy more Tangara's or K sets?
There was no need to spend millions on the latest high tech crap available when you moving human cattle each day, who gives a sh1t what the front end looks like?
Its a typical example of why the SRA went broke and had to be broken up, it was run by total farken imbeciles

I don't kmow why they didn't buy more Tangara's or K sets?
There was no need to spend millions on the latest high tech crap available when you moving human cattle each day, who gives a sh1t what the front end looks like?
Its a typical example of why the SRA went broke and had to be broken up, it was run by total farken imbeciles

are
you
serious

are
you
serious

Yep, I tend to think the Governments obsession with high tech trains, platform indicator boards, plasma signalling diagrams and computer signalling will bite the tax payer in years to come with high maintenance costs.
When things go wrong and age you want to be able to fault find quickly and cheaply, they need to keep it simple, they are running trains, not space ships.
How much is a circuit board for a millinium?

Yep, I tend to think the Governments obsession with high tech trains, platform indicator boards, plasma signalling diagrams and computer signalling will bite the tax payer in years to come with high maintenance costs.
When things go wrong and age you want to be able to fault find quickly and cheaply, they need to keep it simple, they are running trains, not space ships.
How much is a circuit board for a millinium?

Are you just one of those foamers who insists that everything was better back in the Good Old Days, when it really wasn't, and believe we should forever remain in an era where steam is king and workers report in the morning with no assurance they'd finish alive? Given how hard you cling on to delusions about the Murwillumbah line, I cannot shake this impression of you.

Without better trains, better perway, better signalling, better communications and better safety, how in Merlin's name are we going to move an ever-increasing number of people on the metropolitan railway system?

I don't kmow why they didn't buy more Tangara's or K sets?
There was no need to spend millions on the latest high tech crap available when you moving human cattle each day, who gives a sh1t what the front end looks like?
Its a typical example of why the SRA went broke and had to be broken up, it was run by total farken imbeciles

So you are proposing that newer technological features are unnecessary and that the older designs are much more appropriate in the 21st century? I dare you to tell Sydney Trains or the government that, "We need to bring back trains that date pre 2002".

Are you just one of those foamers who insists that everything was better back in the Good Old Days, when it really wasn't, and believe we should forever remain in an era where steam is king and workers report in the morning with no assurance they'd finish alive? Given how hard you cling on to delusions about the Murwillumbah line, I cannot shake this impression of you.

Without better trains, better perway, better signalling, better communications and better safety, how in Merlin's name are we going to move an ever-increasing number of people on the metropolitan railway system?

The latest ten million dollar train can only hold so many people and go as fast as the track conditions allow, it just isn't needed to have a high tech show piece to prove the Government is spending millions.
Some technology is great but not at the level where it could be costly for years to come, a level of simplicity and logic needs to come into play.

Old stuff is horribly expensive to maintain - far more so than replacing it. You don't have plans/specs for the parts (government contract cost measures mean they are rarely purchased with the original item). Often times they can't be replaced at all because the suppliers have gone out of business etc. Reverse engineering stuff is very expensive if you have to go down that path to make things compatible.  In short: build a design for a specific life, replace when at the end of life with a newer, more up to date design.  Far, far cheaper that way.

The S sets were viable for a hell of a long time, by all means buy some new trains but the amount of technology in the latest stuff created plenty of headaches delaying commisioning, the Mylemons were a disaster.

The S sets were viable for a hell of a long time, by all means buy some new trains but the amount of technology in the latest stuff created plenty of headaches delaying commisioning, the Mylemons were a disaster.

The AC equipment in the M sets caused some signal problems and if they had gone with Japanese equipment instead of the unfamiliar French gear there would have been even less problems. To call them a disaster is just echoing the rubbish printed in the Murdoch papers of the time were I suspect you pick up most of your ideas from The Andrew Bolt of Rail News.

I heard they spent a million promoting them then they weren't delivered on time.

The Comeng proposal in the mid-1980s for the Tangara double deck train is contained in the late John Dunn's book "Comeng - The History of Commonwealth Engineering - VOL.5 - 1985 to 1990 (Plus ABB, Adtranz and Bombardier to 2012)". Rosenberg Publishing Pty Ltd, 2013; pp18-30. Reference includes drawings for a 165-seat driving car and a 174-seat non-driving vehicle.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7351/11507781336_41f4ddeb8c_o.png :

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7303/11507739044_7af690b1a3_o.png :

I see where Junction Box is coming from and tend to agree in principle.  Successive government's obsessions with high tech because they can but marketed as "must have" - has hurt the state immensely in both the short and long term, and in both financial and overall infrastructure for the future.

Realistically, they didn't need trains to be any more advanced than Tangaras. And even then a K Set will get to Hornsby quicker via the shore than a Tangara on a rainy night.  JB is on the mark with his point about unnecessary technology for the sake of it. A 8 car Mill has 64 computers on board all trying to talk to each other.  An 8 car OSCar which came out later only has 8 computers for the same number of carriages, and is simpler in design yet superior.  I won't throw waratarts into the mix at this point because there are various political reasons why they are the way they are, but even the high tech approach to signalling with "Super Signalboxes" all computerised with ATRICS, whilst has improved some efficiencies, it has De-skilled many in the boxes that now struggle when things go wrong, and are very INEFFICIENT when having to operate manually (not a criticism of the staff, it's not their fault the powers that be made these decisions ) and the amalgamation of many signal boxes into one has taken away redundancy that now means if something affects one box, massive parts of the network come to a halt. Look what happened when Strathfield/Homebush was evacuated. Look what happened when the computers at Sydenham crashed.  The quest for high tech has made the network MUCH more vulnerable to problems.

The political demands of having to implement as many initiatives of the Waterfall Inquiry meant that the waratarts were going to have a lot of features that aren't even thought of on earlier rollingstock.  That said, most of those features could gave been incorporated into new builds of existing designs without much drama, and for much less tax payer expense.  Another example of how modernising has NOT been to the benefit of the customer (cos it's all about being customer focused) is Intercity services converting to OSCars, let's not even mention seating or leg room, but the toilets. A 4 car OSCar has one toilet, a 4 car V set has 4.  Now the OSCar toilet is much more spacious and suitable for the mobility impaired, however on a packed Newcastle service last week with almost 2000 people aboard, there were only 2 toilets available to the customers (are they still customers if they are fare evaders?). Except, oh dear. The toilet in the rear half of the train wasn't operational, so the unfortunate mobility impaired passenger in the rear half of the train had no access to a toilet.  The solution isn't easy or simple, and I sure as heck don't have it, but if more focus was put into overcoming practical issues back in the design phase, there would not need to be so much engineering put into overcoming issues in the post production phases.  In short, a lot more of that rapidly diminishing commodity, "common sense" should have been used...  EVERYWHERE...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7303/11507739044_7af690b1a3_o.png :

There's a compartment near the walkway between carriages.  Any idea what that was for (It appears to be externally ventillated... traction equipment?)

...technology is bad...

There are hiccups along the way, but remember that one of the reasons that technology is "introduced" (or updated) is that it is expected to reduce cost, or improve service, in the long term, despite any short term pain associated with its introduction.  

And while there's the odd exception to the contrary, history generally shows That Is Exactly What Happens.

There's a compartment near the walkway between carriages.  Any idea what that was for (It appears to be externally ventillated... traction equipment?)

It's the space allocated for the design self funding requirement: in each car 4 poker machines.  I loved the 80s!

Ah ha... so these sets were intended for operation in a five kilometre stretch or so near the Queensland border.

I don't kmow why they didn't buy more Tangara's or K sets?
There was no need to spend millions on the latest high tech crap available when you moving human cattle each day

Would I be correct, was this just before an election? If so, nuh, they wouldn't do thaaat, would they?