Could Chiltern move to Berne Gauge?

[tbtc]

Hypothetically speaking, of course, I'm not suggesting this would happen. But, imagine a TOC running a fairly self-contained set of routes, could they convert their line to the wider Berne gauge (keeping the same track, but introducing wider trains allowing more/bigger seats, scaling back platforms/tunnels to cope with the wider loads)...

...could it happen? Would it be desirable? All of a sudden you'd have access to "continental" trains (allowing easier/cheaper rolling stock procurement etc), better seating potential etc

(I chose Chiltern as an example partly because of the relatively self-contained nature, partly because they already have wide 165s, also because Merseyrail wouldn't easily justify wider tunnels under Liverpool)

 

[gordonthemoron]

what makes you think Berne Gauge trains have bigger seats? They either seem to have more space around the seats or are double deckers, in which case they are a bit claustrophobic

 

[jopsuk]

Even with the "wide" 165s (no wider than 20m stock, just have more outswing/inswing due to being 23m) the platforms for "berne" gauge would need to be much further back and also I think lower. This would cause problems for trains sharing the Chiltern network- mainly London Midland, but also XC and FGW somewhat, and would have an effect on charter services (not so important).

c2c would be a different matter- apart from a limited service into Liverpool Street, it shares tracks only with freight, which would be unaffected (such a limited area would not bring benifits to the size of freight trains).
As a longer network, the Great Eastern, including its branches, could be done- there's little interaction apart from sharing 315s with the West anglia route, so the west half Liverpool Street and the WA/NLL platforms at Stratford could be left alone, with the east half (Norwich, Shenfield, Southend etc) converted. A platform at Norwich and Ipswich each would have to be retained for services from/via Ely and Cambridge.

Could even "work round", with the LTS and GE done, the West Anglia again would be fairly self-contained- there's plenty of space at Cambridge to essentially have two stations. Switch the Kings Lynn services back to Liverpool Street, and have XC and EMT terminate at Peterborough for change to wider local trains?

Upgrades beyond that may be difficult. Great Nothern Electrics could potentially be done without doing the whole ECML- perhaps cut out Stevenage stops, have rigorous platforming at Kings Cross and Peterborough. Beyond that, services and networks become so intertwined that untangling them would be a nightmare- meaning that to alter gauge you'd have to have huge blocks of disruption over a wide area.

 

[tbtc]

what makes you think Berne Gauge trains have bigger seats? They either seem to have more space around the seats or are double deckers, in which case they are a bit claustrophobic

Well, wider train = more space = potential for bigger seats. Since there is a lot of criticism on here of modern trains with narrow seats, this could be one way to "compete'. Or wider aisles, which wouldn't be a bad thing either (stop luggage getting in the way etc.

 

[gordonthemoron]

the seats in german trains are no bigger than in UK trains, although fortunately they don't do 2+3 seating, as most UK trains are sourced from the same companies as german ones, you ain't going to get any 'off the shelf'

 

[tbtc]

c2c would be a different matter- apart from a limited service into Liverpool Street, it shares tracks only with freight, which would be unaffected

Good idea, that'd have made a better example
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the seats in german trains are no bigger than in UK trains, although fortunately they don't do 2+3 seating, as most UK trains are sourced from the same companies as german ones, you ain't going to get any 'off the shelf'

Presumably UK trains have to be built specifically for the UK, whilst continental ones could be built for several countries (e.g. France could buy a follow on order of something built for Germany)?

One of the hassles with the current UK train system is that there are no spare trains and little scope for getting a handful of new ones- meaning we can only make progress when there's a big order made for something. Bring able to tap into a new/second-hand market on the continent could help that?

 

[gordonthemoron]

One of the hassles with the current UK train system is that there are no spare trains and little scope for getting a handful of new ones- meaning we can only make progress when there's a big order made for something. Bring able to tap into a new/second-hand market on the continent could help that?

great idea, you can source loads of ex-communist bloc trains like ALEX (Arriva) have done

 

[ChrisCooper]

Then again the sort of second hand trains we could be sourcing off the continent are the same sorts of trains we're been scrapping or storing in large numbers over recent years anyway, 60s and 70s stock. A hell of a lot is loco hauled or push pull. On the whole the average age of stock on the continent is older than that in the UK.

 

[gordonthemoron]

DB seem to have been flogging off some of their older double deck stock and 60s coaches to eastern europe, however there are still loads of them around Munich. A lot better than their **** new emus which are sourced from alstom or bombardier

 

[ChrisCooper]

But if we were buying 60s stock, why not just reinstate more stored (70s) Mk2s? It would also beg the question of why did we scrap all those 60s Mk1s, especially as continental stock of the same era would be no better in a crash (probably worse actually).

 

[gordonthemoron]

not come across any ancient DB or third party trains with slam doors though

 

[jopsuk]

Anyhow, if one was going to "gauge enhance" the network, wouldn't it be better to aim for GC+, which amongest other things would allow non-cramped double deckers, rather than Berne?

 

[gordonthemoron]

I don't like the DB double deckers as they are too cramped, but their new emus are even worse, about as much room as a voyager and an excess of disabled toilets

 

[tbtc]

Anyhow, if one was going to "gauge enhance" the network, wouldn't it be better to aim for GC+, which amongest other things would allow non-cramped double deckers, rather than Berne?

Would be interesting to see if that were possible for the old LTS line.

 

[Bald Rick]

Anything is possible. But even for a line like the LT&S that is relatively self contained, how would you do it? It's not like you can have a whole new fleet of trains enter service overnight, and at the same time make alterations to dozens of platforms, bridges, OLE clearances, moving the tracks further apart etc. It would take months if not years.

 

[TGV]

I've been on many trains in France, Germany and Belgium - and the USA for that matter and seat size is pretty much the same everywhere. The extra gauge can give a more "airy" feel to the carriage, especially above head height and larger luggage racks, but the work required for that fairly minor benefit would be huuuuuge. Plus you'd "lock" the stock into that route - it couldn't be cascaded down to others in years to come - very inflexible.

 

[brel york]

more room more seats more money easy

 

[jopsuk]

Japanese Shinkansen double deckers run to 3+3 for unreserved and 3+2 for reserved seats in standard class.

 

[47741]

not come across any ancient DB or third party trains with slam doors though

They tended to have powered slam doors afaik. They slammed closed using pneumatics, but were opened manually from the inside. They closed with a force that could take your arm off, let alone your finger.

I'd be interested in the risk assessment for introducing these to the UK!

 

[tbtc]

Anything is possible. But even for a line like the LT&S that is relatively self contained, how would you do it? It's not like you can have a whole new fleet of trains enter service overnight, and at the same time make alterations to dozens of platforms, bridges, OLE clearances, moving the tracks further apart etc. It would take months if not years.

The *how* is the bit that fascinates me.

You could improve the tunnel/bridge/track clearance in the short term, before the new trains arrive...

...then you'd have to scale back the platform edges at the same time as introducing the new stock in a very short space of time. Logistical nightmare, but there must be a way.

You'd tie the stock into one UK route, true, but you'd be able to procure Continental trains (or cascade your trains onto the Continent), so it wouldn't need to be *forever*.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They tended to have powered slam doors afaik. They slammed closed using pneumatics, but were opened manually from the inside. They closed with a force that could take your arm off, let alone your finger.

I'd be interested in the risk assessment for introducing these to the UK!

Sounds a Health & Safety bonanza!

 

[Chris125]

I think its fair to say that it would never pass a value for money test. In an ideal world the UK railways would be to continental loading guage - but they arent, and the benefits of changing will never be greater than the immense cost and disruption of changing.

CHris

 

[jopsuk]

...then you'd have to scale back the platform edges at the same time as introducing the new stock in a very short space of time. Logistical nightmare, but there must be a way.

I wonder if there'd be some way of rebuilding the platforms to the new position, but then adding a temporary extension to them to return them to their old position.

 

[brianthegiant]

if the main the main conflict of compatibility is about platform clearance, maybe the solution would be be for an interim generation of uk specific stock, which would be double deck or spacious single deck, but with cross section bevelled in at the bottom with retractable steps to allow plaforms at old and new position, (i think this was the solution to allow the current E* stock to be compatible with both uk and continental platforms?)

but yes, all academic, whilst there seems to be very slow process of gauge enhancement along container freight routes, we wont see much GC+ gauge & duplex passenger stock except on new lines, phenomenal cost & disruption of rebuilding tunnels & bridges on live lines not justified,

 

[thelem]

I seem to remember reading that any new engineering has to be to a larger gague, so as bridges and things get replaced it slowly become easier to upgrade a line to support larger (possibly double deck) trains. Obviously that's a very long term strategy though, especially for lines with tunnels.

 

[jopsuk]

Alternative idea to having "interim" stock or some such- if we keep the high platforms (or only lower them a little bit) is there any reason why the existing stock could not be fitted with extra-wide step boards at the doors?