FPH 603

13' 6'' above rails, 3' 6'' at platform height.

Some work on the front end. Still doesn't look quite right though.

I'm trying to decide whether keep the plug doors (which are more modern) or to do outside sliding doors. I will definitely go with the curved upper deck, but I feel like I may need to reprofile my design (again!). I think I may also experiment with the livery.

From a screenshot collection of Comeng: A History of Commonweath Engineering Volume 5? I'm thinking of incorporating some of these features into the work in progress design to improve it.

Looking at that I've not only realised how the stairs are the real problem, but also that the reason I turned down the Tangara design was due to the front shape. I will redesign this to be a cross between the Comeng and my modified Goninan fronts.

And I was being told that 3+2 wouldn't work and that I'd have to use 2+1 seating! If you look at the picture above the lower deck windows sit at platform height, meaning the lower deck would be just low enough to have decent height.

What struck me the most in terms of evocative remains (as of recently) was when I came across Ropes Creek and Dunheved stations in NSW. Attached are some before and afters of the stations. Cochrane, the third station was nowhere to be seen, I believe it was demolished completely before having buildings put on top of it. Dunheved c. 1996, although slightly overgrown the track and overhead wiring remains intact. Basically as I saw Dunheved at the time, minus the concrete pipes. Ropes Creek shortly after closure, still retaining a lot of infrastructure. Whilst it was nice to see Ropes Creek restored, I still wished I could have seen the station before it burned down and before this thing was made.

Ok then, I haven't actually seen 66779 before. If it does have bells at both ends then that's the way it is.

Clearly making a straight sided EMU into a curved sided one doesn't work well. I think I may need to completely rework it. I might try a Double Deck Class 365. THE DAMN THING LOOKS LIKE A NETWORKER NOW! EDIT: I will rework the design, will will be basically the same but now it will look more 'British'.

That might be just in case you stuff the first attempt or if it breaks off.

Didn't the APT have steps? Correct me if I'm wrong. They're pointless now.

So keep it 8' 8''?

These are the demands for modern trains, the double deck design would have been dated in the late 1980's or early 1990's. I don't know if this was a real concern during that period but I don't see this really as an issue, but I'll put it into consideration. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As explained by DavidBAU in post #2271, the single deck spaces are for people in wheelchairs and those who cannot work with the stairs. Of course, all seats will be made longitudinal. Some poles will be replaced too, particularly that 4 sided thing that everyone bangs their heads on.

Essentially like the APT! I see your point with the Hastings DEMU and the Mk1, they do look very different in terms of width. So are you saying that I should revert to the width to 9' 0''?

I had a look at this, but I find the overhang of the 345's front is more than my double deck design. Really I see the overhang being just a little more than your standard 321 or 'Networker' EMU's. I see where you are going but personally I don't think that would be necessary. The original design had the coaches at approximately 62', whereas to me they look more like the length of 57' 1st generation DMU's, maybe even shorter.

That's why I said 'the thing known as television'!

Are they selling ONE train, or are they selling multiple?

Looks like you've done the work for me! I think that looks pretty good. I really need to start stepping outside the box, as I was initially go for a much more conventional approach and simply shorten the coaches and have a 4-car articulated set, but that does look a lot better. I'll look into this further and make a more 'finalised' variant. I will redesign the bogies, and make any other minor tweaks where needed. I feel like the front will need work as well, part of me is saying that I should revert the roof back to it's original shape, as I find when looking front on it looks like its lost some of it's character. EDIT: I think I'll have to work on the livery too, there's something missing...

This thread is already like the thing known as television. Mainly repeats. (Trying to keep the repetitive tradition!)

Reminds me of how these railway companies find excuses to keep Pacers in service when pretty clearly they have well reached their sell by date.

I have shortened the the DTS (Now a half motor articulated vehicle or DHMS) to and will gradually redesign the other carriages if this design will work. The lower half of the vehicle below the platform has been tapered similar to that of a Mk3 coach, and because the lower deck windows are at platform level this will only mean the seats are slightly closer together. I may replace these with longitudinal seats later. EDIT: I will probably remove the end single deck saloon at the articulated section of the DHMS. However this will mean I will have to relocate or completely remove the roof mounted equipment.

This is really confusing me, so is it too wide or too long? This stuff is kind of new to me.

The design is 8' 8'' in width, not 9' 0''. If you look at JDW's post near the top of the page it shows the British loading gauge for below platform width is 8' 8''.

Would this be any better?