I'll say it again, we have to (somehow) do it like QR - fix the track to allow both improved freight running as well as fast passenger running, and fund it as a project to improve freight rail with passenger rail benefits as a side plus. Sold as that, the freight corporations could be asked to chip in...
I posted in both because the OT was the same and my comment applied to both.
I would have posted in one and linked in the other, but Railpage isn't as strict with multiple-posting (both parallel and series).
Underfloor Diesels are only as bad as they are designed. I would have thought the DEL types should provide smoother operation as the genset can be effectively mounted of vibration/noise free housing. They work in Europe and I don't see whey cannot be made to work here.
Diesels are never "vibration/noise free". It's about how much insulation you install. Yes, the ideal is a DEMU, but of the older setup where we can have fewer diesels (say, two cars out of seven) and the other motors spread across the train (say, four cars - two with diesel, two slaved) and then the trailers. Even better would be just one power-supplying car at the Economy end, to keep it quiet for the premium classes.
The push-pull XPT style is too inflexible for such a small operation like Countrylink and using two different forms of rollingstock just makes this even worse.
Justify your claim about it being "inflexible" (note: if anyone thinks any of my claims/arguments is insufficiently justified, call me out on it and I'll patch it)
. The floating hive idea at the moment is to run the two long intercapital services with dedicated consists that won't be changed between runs. It doesn't need to be flexible, not if it only rests for an hour, twice a day.
All too often this comes to light with services basically haveing very very limited capacity to grow with peak periods or special events. The most flexible form of rolling stock for CL relatively small trains is DMU's or loco hauled. Loco hauled has its own problems. DMU's ahev proven their flexiblility in CL with trains merging, spiltting growing and shrinking. Walk through obviously has its benefits and should be maintained.
I've reached a similar conclusion. The ability to split Armidale/Moree and Canberra/Griffith is certainly advantageous. However, with some creativity, locomotive-hauled services can be made to work.
One method that I've heard suggested is to recycle the XPT trailers as they're in much better condition than the power cars (a similar problem to the InterCity 125). Their new use would most likely be as loco-hauled stock, pulled by diesels from someone else (one of the freight companies, in all probability) on a hook-and-pull contract basis.
It would likely work quite well for runs with more cars, such as the Dubbo or Grafton trains, but for short trains it might not work nearly as well, as it's a bit silly to haul three cars with 3,300hp of brute traction.
The examples given on train sizes was just to replace whats there now. If for example services grew, then for example 2 and 3 car sets could be made longer to accommadate. Streamlining is a waste of space on these short trains. You loose more than you gain and potentially need to add another car to make up for lost space, so more fuel spent than saved. For speeds sub 100 is a complete waste of time and sub 200, marginal at best and really only works for longer trains. As most trains in NSW average sub 80km/hr, best not to waste time with this and leave it to the HSR.
See my comments in the Xplorer replacement thread regarding limited streamlining. I'll post some images for your viewing pleasure.
This is what I want - nothing too extreme.
If I can get ISE on EC flights that are shorter than what CL has tro offer, then CL needs to match. Also remember a flight normally only has one departure and arrival so its easy to put on a movie for say a 3hr flight and everyone doesn't miss out. But a train stops and starts so each pax has a different depature, arrival and duration.
O-kayy. I'll admit I've flown a lot. My last long-haul flight was Qantas, from Singapore to Sydney. It was a fairly long flight, at just under eight hours. Despite the fact that everyone gets on in Singapore and gets off in Sydney, everyone (even in Economy) gets a full entertainment library where they can choose their very own entertainment. (Apart from a very fun chat with two German students and an American businessman in the back area with the fridges, I used it to drown myself in Avril Lavigne and Taylor Swift.)
I intend for our premium classes to enjoy something similar, so they can tailor their entertainment to their own requirements. Free WiFi is another one, with a plugpoint for every seat for the premium classes, and charging stations for Economy.
The comment of fixed seating was basically two classes, not fixed. QR's concept seems to work well in that trains must be turned ands enables seats to be simpler and cheaper, especially on RTT where the entertainment system is overhead TV's. However I understand the issue with NSW and not be able to turn trains so seats to be uni directional.
And what are your two classes?
There is the alternative, BR solution, which was to have half face one way and half face the other - think of a Tangara, but facing inwards, not outwards. However, for the current floating hive idea, seats are only really a problem for Economy, since First consists of twinette cabins and Business consists of 2+1 forwards-backwards flatbeds; Economy seats can probably be made to rotate as per current installations.
I was analysing the idea of providing roomette accommodation to cater to the business traveller travelling alone. However, it gave even less capacity than my original forwards-backwards cabin, and I decided that it was more practical to retain that, but improve the inter-passenger shielding, and provide earplugs and nightshades.
I think it's fairly obvious from the kitting out that I'm thinking in terms of air travel ;P