I know he is a rail expert, more details will follow via email.
With enhanced signalling, may have been shown to have the same capacity as the Sydney suburban with existing signalling, but the capacity of the Sydney suburban with enhanced signalling would in fact be greater.
Not all metro is automated, especially not classic metro.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to look at headways and capacity of other networks using double decked rolling stock.
If he is an expect he would have done his research. If he han't he is not an expert or you have mis quoted. Why couldn't you post details before or now?
Most of the studies done over last 15 years have not included more trains at Town Hall for good reason and its been explained to you why. I know you won't bother to look it up, but below is a photo of Town Hall Station with its Narrow platfoms, although some of the worst areas are not shown.
- Narrow platforms with limited exits.
- In many parts of the platform the width is less than the train due to building, stairs etc.
- People get off the train, with some people waiting for the next train, more obstacles, even if they stand back you are still constrained to a few metres at best and then at the next train door, more people.
- Look in the middle of the photo, there is a walk almost on the safety line, but next to him are some people leaning against the all and their feet are less than 1m away from him.
- the escalator in the picture is just wide enough for one escalator.
As I have said before, I grew up thinking that the centre platforms on each level were actually added on for the ESR (wasn't yet running when I was very small). I think most people who have been to Town Hall would feel similar unless they know the history. It looks like a nice well designed old station, that someone has squeezed down by adding extra two tracks.
I've also said perhaps the down shore should be switched to the centre platform No.5 and then both centre platforms opened to the platform on both sides. However the realignment of the tracks is probably extremely costly and intrusive on operations.
The costs to go to 24t/hr is med-high priced and high risk with the likely hood of a very public failure and a loss of nearly 5 years or more of time.
The ability to run trains at 2.5min from Chatswood to Straithfield is not in question, the ability to get people to move through the station safely, reliably and efficiently without turning Town Hall station in a crowded Japanese commuter station is the question and to date few in power want to risk this. Additionally once the high cost project is done, capacity would be eated up within 10 years, then back to a Metro. So just build the F/n Metro and solve the issue for the next 25 years, low risk, lowest cost per passenger mile, DONE!
Imagine some major disaster at the station, such as a fire or lots of smoke and likely death count from the panic? The technical people may say yes, but if the fire people say no, likely in this case it won't happen. (yes I have been to Town Hall in peak)
When I refer to Metro, I only refer to something built in lat 30 years and Automated (call it what you like). I am not focused or care about the dinosaur systems built 100yrs ago that you always focus on.
Head ways of other networks regardless of technology is irrelevant as none of them have to deal with Town Hall. Are there busies stations? yes. But they are typically much better designed than this disaster.
And I'm think we (I) are about done on this as you have brought nothing new to the table and ignoring basics.