Double-deck trains

[neonison]

A correspondent in today's Daily Telegraph, referring to the Bullied 4DD stock suggests that with dropped floor and sliding doors this could be an option worth revisiting.

Given Britain's low height restrictions and high platforms I'm still trying to figure out how this would work.

 

[najaB]

Given Britain's low height restrictions and high platforms I'm still trying to figure out how this would work.

Double deck trains could be made to work on any route that is W12 cleared. The high platforms aren't the problem - the vestibules would be at platform level and you'd step down to the lower deck and up to the top deck.

The real problem is the fact that our loading gauge gets narrower below the platform level, which will put a constraint on how wide the lower deck can be - think inverted Voyager, wide at the top, narrower at the bottom.

 

[neonison]

Double deck trains could be made to work on any route that is W12 cleared. The high platforms aren't the problem - the vestibules would be at platform level and you'd step down to the lower deck and up to the top deck.

The real problem is the fact that our loading gauge gets narrower below the platform level, which will put a constraint on how wide the lower deck can be - think inverted Voyager, wide at the top, narrower at the bottom.

That's the issue though. As access is only available at vestibules over the bogies and lower level seating is at best 2+1 when one then needs to add steps the increase in capacity has got to be marginal and loading/unloading more time-consuming.

 

[Hophead]

That's the issue though. As access is only available at vestibules over the bogies and lower level seating is at best 2+1 when one then needs to add steps the increase in capacity has got to be marginal and loading/unloading more time-consuming.

Furthermore, I can't believe that you'd be able to fit much equipment under the floor, so you also need to hand over 20-odd metres to a loco; possibly one at each end.

 

[jonathan01n]

I don't think this is a good design ( pseudo Double Deck). I think change the seats to the minimum (side by side) and increase the door each side to 5 doors are better.
I think reducing dwell time and increase the frequency of service is the way to improve communing service.
However I have to say the Engineer who designed this type of coach is a genius and able to fit all the necessary machinery within the strict constrain of British Loading Gauge.

 

[NSEFAN]

That's the issue though. As access is only available at vestibules over the bogies and lower level seating is at best 2+1 when one then needs to add steps the increase in capacity has got to be marginal and loading/unloading more time-consuming.

This is exactly the issue. You could make double decker trains just about work in the UK loading gauge, but given the trade-offs required it's not really worth it.

 

[w0033944]

Double deck trains could be made to work on any route that is W12 cleared. The high platforms aren't the problem - the vestibules would be at platform level and you'd step down to the lower deck and up to the top deck.

How would this work from the point of view of disabled access? I'm not being sarcastic; just wondering, as a disabled person myself, whether it would be possible to make it accessible for those of us with limited mobility.

 

[TheEdge]

How would this work from the point of view of disabled access? I'm not being sarcastic; just wondering, as a disabled person myself, whether it would be possible to make it accessible for those of us with limited mobility.

The same way its done on proper double deck stock in Europe. Some vehicles have a large open area on the bottom floor with ramped floors for bikes and wheelchairs. Others have small seating areas on the same level as the doors

 

[chubs]

Furthermore, I can't believe that you'd be able to fit much equipment under the floor, so you also need to hand over 20-odd metres to a loco; possibly one at each end.

It works with the VIRM's in The Netherlands. They ride really quietly and nicely too. The older DDM1 coaching stock was double decker with a loco though and driving cab at the other end, and some of the DD-AR had a loco whilst the others had a motor coach with the top deck seating and lower deck as motors (now DDZ) with a driving cab at the other end. No need for a second loco at all.

How would this work from the point of view of disabled access? I'm not being sarcastic; just wondering, as a disabled person myself, whether it would be possible to make it accessible for those of us with limited mobility.

In The Netherlands the vestibule is at platform height with the toilet and then space for a bay of seats or bike space or a wheelchair space and disabled toilet. They're really roomy too, thanks to the large loading gauge I guess.

 

[Hadders]

If the bottom level is width restricted then have it for standing area (or bench seats overground style).

Surprised GTR haven't proposed this for Thameslink

 

[route:oxford]

For me the comparison is taking The Tube in from Oxford.

The Van Hool Astromega is 4m tall and 14m long, 2.55m wide and seats around 87 + Wheelchair in comfort- as well as having the two staircases, engine, loo, air conditioning etc.

A Mk3 Coach is 23 metres long, 3.81m tall and 2.74m wide.

It doesn't sound *too* unrealistic to fit a Tube style experience into the overall envelope of a Mk3 or Class 800 coach and to offer around 60 seats each on an upper and lower deck of LHCS.

 

[TheEdge]

For me the comparison is taking The Tube in from Oxford.

The Van Hool Astromega is 4m tall and 14m long, 2.55m wide and seats around 87 + Wheelchair in comfort- as well as having the two staircases, engine, loo, air conditioning etc.

A Mk3 Coach is 23 metres long, 3.81m tall and 2.74m wide.

It doesn't sound *too* unrealistic to fit a Tube style experience into the overall envelope of a Mk3 or Class 800 coach and to offer around 60 seats each on an upper and lower deck of LHCS.

I'm not quite sure how comparing a road coach to a train really helps here. So lets compare a rail coach with another rail coach.

As you say a Mk3 is 23m long, 3.81m tall and 2.74 wide.

The current generation of Bombardier Twindexx double-decker stock is 26.8m long, 4.63m tall and 2.78m wide. They also seat ~120 plus 160 standing compared to the 70-80 seated plus the standing capacity of a Mk3.

So its a similar width but almost 4m longer and almost 1m taller. Now that 1m may not sound much but bare in mind they don't have much equipment under floor like British stock does. Two reasons, firstly its held in either the extra space gained from the length (which also helps address lost space from the vestibules and stairs). Secondly, unlike the UK which likes to bolt engines to the floor of their carriages the Europeans use a very novel system where a single large vehicle at one end of the train contains all the power packs, engines and auxiliary equipment leaving the maximum amount of space in coaches for people.

 

[HSTEd]

The loading gauge getting narrower at below platform level just means you would have transverse seating S-stock style on the lower deck, with plenty of standing room.

Furthermore, I can't believe that you'd be able to fit much equipment under the floor, so you also need to hand over 20-odd metres to a loco; possibly one at each end.

Considering 20m can contain 6,000 horses and two voltage equipment, complete with huge tractive effort (Class 92), I am not sure why you would ever need two on newbuild stock.
Additionally the cab length is less important than it was, since you could put the cab on the top deck or bottom deck and ahve the other deck have seating all the way to the end of the vehicle.

Indeed you could fit some equipment above the roof in the vestibules where there is only one deck.

 

[AM9]

A correspondent in today's Daily Telegraph, referring to the Bullied 4DD stock suggests that with dropped floor and sliding doors this could be an option worth revisiting.

Given Britain's low height restrictions and high platforms I'm still trying to figure out how this would work.

I read that and I think there was a similarly uninformed letter last weekend. This has been discussed on and off for years on these forums. In effect, any attempt to increase route capacity by any double deck design that fits into even the largest classic UK loading gauge would end up with a lower capacity.
Even with a larger loading gauge, there isn't really any gain.
I've been on suburban double deck trains in the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France and New York. In each case, both at peak and off-peak times, the dwell times are painful as most of the passengers have to climb or decend stairs and the doors are located at the ends. There are few if any provisions for luggage and the choice is either waste time getting out from a seat or clog up the standing area by the doors.

 

[chubs]

suburban double deck trains in the Netherlands [...] the dwell times are painful as most of the passengers have to climb or decend stairs and the doors are located at the ends.

I spend quite a bit of time in The Netherlands and have since I was a child and don't find this at all. The original hauled carriages maybe but the VIRM's have huge stairways and huge doors, swell times are no longer than on an EMU here. In fact they're a good deal quicker than on stock with small doors like the mk3's. You're right about no space for luggage though, it's strongly discouraged to leave it in the vestibule too due to theft.

And again the VIRM's don't need a loco, they manage to fit it all in and operate very quietly (with a different loading gauge of course).

 

[D365]

Ah, about time. I was wondering when we would get around to the annual "Could double deckers fit on our railways" discussion.

 

[route:oxford]

I'm not quite sure how comparing a road coach to a train really helps here. So lets compare a rail coach with another rail coach.

There's no point in comparing it to a rail coach that wouldn't fit within UK gauge.

What is clear is that an Oxford Tube (or X90) Coach, that millions of passengers choose to use every year instead of an HST, Turbo or Clubman to travel in air-conditioned Wi-fi enabled comfort to London will physically fit in the envelope of a Mk3, Mk4 or Class 800 - not just that, but would fit between the bogies.

It wouldn't be "Superliner" style headroom, but would be no worse than that what people expect from a luxury coach.

 

[The Planner]

Double deck trains could be made to work on any route that is W12 cleared.

Not many then!

 

[jopsuk]

There's no point in comparing it to a rail coach that wouldn't fit within UK gauge.

What is clear is that an Oxford Tube (or X90) Coach, that millions of passengers choose to use every year instead of an HST, Turbo or Clubman to travel in air-conditioned Wi-fi enabled comfort to London will physically fit in the envelope of a Mk3, Mk4 or Class 800 - not just that, but would fit between the bogies.

It wouldn't be "Superliner" style headroom, but would be no worse than that what people expect from a luxury coach.

Road double deckers would only fit vertically. They still would have clearance issues at low level horizontally and changing to trains wheels isn't that simple.

 

[MotCO]

Road double deckers would only fit vertically. They still would have clearance issues at low level horizontally and changing to trains wheels isn't that simple.

They managed to put a Leyland National on to rail bogies

 

[Peter Mugridge]

They managed to put a Leyland National on to rail bogies

*Looks in vain for bogies under any Pacer*


More seriously - to answer one of the points in the past few posts overnight; I have used a lot of double deck stock in Paris and I agree the dwell times aren't really any worse than with conventional stock.

There isn't any difference between the dwell times on the classic double deck stock ( like the Z20500 ) and the more recent designs ( like the Z22500 which has doors everywhere ) but the "doors everywhere" types are certainly much more messy and claustrophobic inside - and seem much more prone to being vandalised internally as a result.

The Z20500 remains my favourite of the French double deck units.

 

[najaB]

Not many then!

But some of the busiest ones at least.

 

[The Planner]

Where though? WCML is only W10, MML won't be now electrification is canned, Western is only Padd to Reading.

 

[najaB]

Where though? WCML is only W10, MML won't be now electrification is canned, Western is only Padd to Reading.

Oh, I thought the southern end of the WCML had been cleared W12, plus there was mention that the Crossrail tunnels had been bored wide enough for double-deck trains (though the OHLE wasn't been installed to support them).

 

[daikilo]

W12 is a freight loading gauge and is flat topped and I think less than 4m above the rail. What is needed is more like the C3 with its curved roof which may be what GB+ is. A peak about a metre wide at 4m+ above the rail-head should be adequate. I think the clearances below 1m are not the real issue with 4 abreast seating except possibly near the centre of the coach on a sharp bend.

Also, the UK is in love with double-deck buses in an urban environment and quickish stops are regular occurances. It is all about splitting flows inside and outside the vehichle.

 

[najaB]

W12 is a freight loading gauge and is flat topped and I think less than 4m above the rail. What is needed is more like the C3 with its curved roof which may be what GB+ is.

The wide shoulders of the W10/12 freight profile was what I was thinking would be useful. The lower deck is going to be cramped so the upper deck should be as large as practicable.

 

[route:oxford]

Road double deckers would only fit vertically. They still would have clearance issues at low level horizontally and changing to trains wheels isn't that simple.

I'm no way suggesting putting a coach on train wheels.

I'm using it to highlight what fits inside a 14m x 4m x 2.5m empty space and still leave 4.5m at either end over the bogies for doors, staircases, lavatories etc.

 

[GusB]

They managed to put a Leyland National on to rail bogies

I read once that Leyland had some vague plan to build double-deck carriages, presumably using National parts. I'm not at home, so I don't have the book to hand (Beyond Realit: Leyland Bus, The Twilight Years, Doug Jack) but the book shows a photograph of what it would have looked like.

They did of course build a single deck vehicle on a Mk1 underframe.

 

[Busaholic]

Only ever caught the Southern Electric one (or was it two?) on a handful of occasions, but if you got on one at Charing Cross in the evening peak, as I did a couple of times, the call at London Bridge was even more 'interesting' than usual, with veiled if not actual threats!

 

[Bornin1980s]

How would this work from the point of view of disabled access? I'm not being sarcastic; just wondering, as a disabled person myself, whether it would be possible to make it accessible for those of us with limited mobility.

The only British loading gauge double deck concept l've seen includes a single deck accessible carriage.