3805 wrote:The issue with running V Sets down the south coast again is that the whole of Wollongong depot would need to be re-qualified on V Set operation. That includes both drivers and guards. Also most (though not all) of the 8V stopping boards have been removed from the short platforms. Port Kembla staff would need to be retrained for the decants of V Sets. Did I just hear paperwork being shuffled into the "too hard" basket?
The suggestion was to use them on local services, so:
Only run them in 4 car sets.
Lock the toilets out of use.
Preserving fire service history @ The Museum of Fire.
Even if toilets were to be locked off, there is still the issue of qualifying drivers, guards and standards officers at Wollongong. Whether a decant would be preformed or not at Port Kembla is irrelevant as all staff must have training on ALL sets that they may potentially handle. Yard cleaners would also need training and vacuum cleaners issued. A return to the old "L" Sets may then be more practical for local running.
3805 wrote:Even if toilets were to be locked off, there is still the issue of qualifying drivers, guards and standards officers at Wollongong. Whether a decant would be preformed or not at Port Kembla is irrelevant as all staff must have training on ALL sets that they may potentially handle. Yard cleaners would also need training and vacuum cleaners issued. A return to the old "L" Sets may then be more practical for local running.
L sets which are basically 3 car S sets surely it assmumed most S sets will be scrapped once the B sets are introduced. Issuing vacuum cleaners seems pretty simple.
I guess it would be probably easier if there was a suburban rolling stock shortage to keep the S sets for longer or buy more B sets.
tonyp wrote:Well basically the government/TfNSW sees it as replacing the oldest trains first - which are on the CCN and BMT lines. They see south coast as having new trains, so last in the queue. The issue ignored is that the oldest trains are actually the most comfortable for long-distance travel!
In fact I would like to see V sets displaced from CCN and BMTgo to south coast until the NIFs arrive rather than going straight to scrap. Some of the Vs were built in the late 1980s, they're not actually that old as trains, apart from being way more comfortable than the Hs. That would also free up Oscars earlier to boost the Sydney system.
With the home depot near Tuggerah, logical that the first enter service on the CCN line. The V sets may be more comfortable for the able bodied, but they are less friendly for the mobility impaired. While the younger examples could continue on for some time yet given that they are up to 12 years younger than some of the earlier examples still in service, they will be over 30 by the time withdrawals commence, so approaching life expiry.
The delivery of the NIFs will coincide with the closure of some of the platforms at Central for Metro tunnel work. So possibly even more South Coast services will be diverted to Bondi Junction during this which would rule out the V sets, at least in 8 car configuration. Presumably long term the NIFs will either all terminate at Central or selective door opening be used to allow them to operate on the Eastern Suburbs line.
Frosty wrote:I guess it would be probably easier if there was a suburban rolling stock shortage to keep the S sets for longer or buy more B sets.
There are some extra trains within the NIF order, 520 carriages will 420 H and V set carriages. There is also an option within the current B set contract for additional sets.
" The V sets may be more comfortable for the able bodied, but they are less friendly for the mobility impaired."
That is a very dubious assertion. Unless I was actually in a wheelchair, I would vastly prefer the platform level seating which vsets have, compared to the uncomfortable seats and bouncy ride in the end compartments of an Oscar or similar train.
neilrex wrote:" The V sets may be more comfortable for the able bodied, but they are less friendly for the mobility impaired."
That is a very dubious assertion. Unless I was actually in a wheelchair, I would vastly prefer the platform level seating which vsets have, compared to the uncomfortable seats and bouncy ride in the end compartments of an Oscar or similar train.
neilrex wrote:" The V sets may be more comfortable for the able bodied, but they are less friendly for the mobility impaired."
That is a very dubious assertion. Unless I was actually in a wheelchair, I would vastly prefer the platform level seating which vsets have, compared to the uncomfortable seats and bouncy ride in the end compartments of an Oscar or similar train.
Start with the toilets.
The point neilrex made, which I agree with, specifically excepts wheelchairs. As it is necessary that wheelchair access is available, obviously the V sets cannot continue in service in the long term so it's a hypothetical point from that angle.
However, the point being made is that for the large percentage of people who may be ambulant but still have a range of other physical and medical issues, the V sets are still a far superior train to ride in. What we actually need is a V set with full wheelchair accessibility and it's looking a bit shaky as to whether the NIFs will rise to that benchmark. Well in fact they've failed already because of the fixed seating. What we don't know yet is what the seats are actually going to be like to ride in, even if you do win the forward-facing boarding stampede.
It's worth bearing in mind that the contract for the Oscars (which I've seen) required seats that were of a suitable standard for long-distance journeys. The seat supplier, whom I won't name here, quite evidently failed in that. On top of that, the client (Railcorp or whoever at the time) failed in their duty to enforce that part of the contract and reject the cars until that part of the contract was fulfilled satisfactorily. SInce that bit of fumbling happened not that long ago, who's to say that it won't happen again?
The point neilrex made, which I agree with, specifically excepts wheelchairs.
V set toilets would fail to met any modern standards, particularly for people with ambulatory problems or for those who need a guide dog, not just wheelchair users.
Tonymercury wrote:
V set toilets would fail to met any modern standards, particularly for people with ambulatory problems or for those who need a guide dog, not just wheelchair users.
Yes I know. No disagreement on that point. The discussion is about other features on the V sets, particularly the seating. Even in that regard though, the need for some longitudinal flip-up seating at platform level can't be avoided either, just perhaps not as much as entire end saloons at both ends of a car, which is what neilrex is referring to. However, for various accessibility reasons, entire saloons-full of forward-facing seats accessed by a swing door that only opens one way is no longer possible.
The V sets were a world class product when introduced, but the design is now over 40 years old. The original Oscars were ordered to replace the outer suburban Tangaras on 90 minute journeys to Gosford and Wollongong. They weren't intended for 3 hour Newcastle and Kiama journeys.
So what we have is one type that is nearly life expired, and another that is being used on a task for which it wasn't intended.
V sets haven't age that badly and aren't as hated as the S sets from the same time period interesting to see which one will remain in service longer. The V sets also have the issue of not having selective door opening there was a case where the doors opened on a short platform and a blind man & guide dog fell out onto the tracks.
tonyp wrote:The discussion is about other features on the V sets, particularly the seating. Even in that regard though, the need for some longitudinal flip-up seating at platform level can't be avoided either, just perhaps not as much as entire end saloons at both ends of a car, which is what neilrex is referring to. .
Neilrex was responding to this -
'The V sets may be more comfortable for the able bodied, but they are less friendly for the mobility impaired.'
Frosty wrote:V sets haven't age that badly and aren't as hated as the S sets from the same time period interesting to see which one will remain in service longer.
The biggest problem passengers have with the S sets is the lack of air-conditioning, obviously not an issue with the V sets. With the first B sets already delivered and the first NIFs not due to arrive until 2019, the V sets will probably outlive the S sets by a number of years.
In ruling out driver-only trains, Mr Constance said the exact responsibilities and title of the second staff role on the trains would be decided in talks with the Rail Tram and Bus Union.
In ruling out driver-only trains, Mr Constance said the exact responsibilities and title of the second staff role on the trains would be decided in talks with the Rail Tram and Bus Union.
So, not Guards?
The term 'guard' has a specific meaning with very specific functions on the train. As the NIF trains are effectively DOO trains, the safe working functions of the guard are with the driver. The '2nd' person is no longer a 'guard' but a 'passenger services officer' or something. But not a 'guard'.
This has implications on the training and skills required of this person and probably more important to the RBTU - the pay this person receives.
If the 2nd person on board no longer performs any safe working function, you can sure the pay will be downgraded as well.
The Union will be fighting a losing battle here on the function and responsibility of the guards. The long-term trend has been for driver only operation worldwide (and now towards no driver at all!). Staff on board a train, if there is any at all, will be customer service only and will have no (Well normally anyway) safe working or actual train operation function.
The pay for these staff will be adjusted accordingly.
matthewg wrote:
The Union will be fighting a losing battle here on the function and responsibility of the guards. The long-term trend has been for driver only operation worldwide (and now towards no driver at all!). Staff on board a train, if there is any at all, will be customer service only and will have no (Well normally anyway) safe working or actual train operation function.
The pay for these staff will be adjusted accordingly.
But if there was to be an increase in the number of drivers due to an increase in the fleet and also better frequency of services, then the guards should apply. Not a huge step up but it does allow them to get greater pay, and also fill the number of driver vacancies.
(I think the number of carriages purchased - 512 - will certainly demand that there are more drivers?)
A quick count of carriages at the moment:
H set: 55x 4 car sets = 220 cars
V set: 60x 4 car sets = 240* cars
A minor adjustment to the above post from swtt, just for the records:-
Currently, the V set Fleet is as follows:-
51 x 4car sets, plus 2 x 3car sets used for ATP Testing.
Any other V set cars have been set aside or scrapped.
In respect to the NIF of 512 cars, this Fleet will be made up into sets as follows:-
34 x 6car sets and 77 x 4car sets.
Scott4570 wrote:A minor adjustment to the above post from swtt, just for the records:-
Currently, the V set Fleet is as follows:-
51 x 4car sets, plus 2 x 3car sets used for ATP Testing.
Any other V set cars have been set aside or scrapped.
In respect to the NIF of 512 cars, this Fleet will be made up into sets as follows:-
34 x 6car sets and 77 x 4car sets.
So we actually have even less carriages currently to service the outer suburban/intercity network.
So there definitely is a need to have more drivers if those 512 carriages were to be put into good use and not have them simply service a trip here or there for the peaks. DOO would be one step forward, and eventually the government outlay on drivers + "guards" (whatever they're going to be called) would be greater than that currently - it's a redistribution of a slightly growing pie, not a shrinking of the pie.
The Current Timetable requires the following number of Rosters for OSCARS and V sets (with number of cars):-
South Coast Rosters for OSCARS: 5 x 4car, 9 x 8car, equates to a Total = 23 x 4car sets
Central Coast Rosters for OSCARS: 2 x 4car, 12 x 8car, equates to a Total = 26 x 4car sets
Central Coast Rosters for V sets: 10 x 8car, equates to a Total = 20 x 4car sets
Blue Mountains West Rosters for V sets: 1 x 4car, 10 x 8car, equates to a Total = 21 x 4car sets
Total OSCARS in use = 49 (89% availability approx. of Fleet totalling 55 sets)
Total V sets in use = 41 (80% availability approx. of Fleet totalling 51 sets)
With NIF, using the same number of Rosters, increasing 4cars to 6 and 8cars to 10 in some cases:-
South Coast Rosters for NIF: 3 x 4car (Port Kembla Shuttles), 2 x 6car, 3 x 10car, 6 x 8car, equates to a Total = 5 x 6car, 18 x 4car sets
Central Coast Rosters for NIF: 2 x 6car, 16 x 10car, 6 x 8car (via North Shore Line), equates to a Total = 18 x 6car, 28 x 4car sets
Blue Mountains West Rosters for NIF: 1 x 6car, 4 x 10car, 6 x 8car, equates to a Total = 5 x 6car, 16 x 4car sets
Total NIF 6car sets in use = 28 (availability 82% approx. of a Fleet totalling 34 sets)
Total NIF 4car sets in use = 62 (availability 81% approx. of a Fleet totalling 77 sets)
Scott4570 wrote:
Total NIF 6car sets in use = 28 (availability 82% approx. of a Fleet totalling 34 sets)
Total NIF 4car sets in use = 62 (availability 81% approx. of a Fleet totalling 77 sets)
For new trains, that a very low availability requirement! You'd think that it would be 92% available instead of 82%.
But then that is assuming we only stick with the current rosters and not have additional services. Notably, half hourly services from the BMT and SCO instead of the current hourly?
