Double decker trains

[AM9]

There’s no doubt we will be moving to double decker trains within 10 years as we will be at or beyond capacity on most of the network especially in the southeast. The trains are full now !

I think that there's no doubt that the situation won't change wrt double deck trains on anything but HS1 or HS2. After all, there has been an ongoing debate about them for years and since the SR 4DD EMUs' demise nothing has ever been seriously considered by those whose decision it would be. That hasn't stopped the media from raising the issue every few years when commuter complaints about overcrowding (as in some have to stand for a while) crop up. The trend in commuter designs is for through gangways, 2+2 seating with a wide aisle and wide fast opening sliding doors. All designed to reduce dwell times allowing reliable operation with short headways, (think classes 345/700/707/717/etc..)

 

[swt_passenger]

There’s no doubt we will be moving to double decker trains within 10 years as we will be at or beyond capacity on most of the network especially in the southeast. The trains are full now !

There’s every doubt. It will remain far too expensive to alter the infrastructure.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's understandable why this keeps coming up.

People look at buses like the Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 Super-Lo at 3.91 metres tall:-

https://www.alexander-dennis.com/media/69789/enviro500-superlo-brochure.pdf

Then look at the Deltic locomitives that were also 3.91 meters tall.

And wonder why the bit between the bogies of a coach can't be just like a double decker bus.

The trouble is there are so many secrets or information that is difficult to get hold of in the UK railway sector.

Bits like

What's the absolute maximum height of a passenger rail vehicle?
What's the minimum clearance between foot of carriage and rail head?
How long should a passenger train call at a station for?

I very much doubt any of that is a secret to the rolling stock industry or Network Rail.

 

[Antman]

The trend in commuter designs is for through gangways, 2+2 seating with a wide aisle and wide fast opening sliding doors. All designed to reduce dwell times allowing reliable operation with short headways, (think classes 345/700/707/717/etc..)

the trend is maximum loadings by fewer seats. And many still don’t have toilets. Even on hour plus routes. The dwell times are only a part of it. The primary aim is to cram as many people on first. Then do it quickly. Then disgorge them quickly. I am not sure the seats and comfort figure except that they have to have some. Having endured crowded 455s for long enough, I suspect they would run a consist of GUVs and 489s if they could

 

[xc170]

I used a couple of double deck RER trains in Paris recently and thought what a good idea they are.

 

[AM9]

the trend is maximum loadings by fewer seats. And many still don’t have toilets. Even on hour plus routes.

The total duration of a service is not that relevant to the provision of toilet facilities. With a double-ended service like Crossrail, the Shenfield to Reading journey opportunity is unlikely to be taken by many travellers, the overwhelming majority traffic will be from their dormitory locations to their workplaces or airport.

The dwell times are only a part of it. The primary aim is to cram as many people on first. Then do it quickly. Then disgorge them quickly. I am not sure the seats and comfort figure except that they have to have some. Having endured crowded 455s for long enough, I suspect they would run a consist of GUVs and 489s if they could

The primary aim is to provide a service that actually gets passengers to their destinations safely and on time. With rising demand for travel on many routes, the instances of passengers being unable to board trains at all is an absolute failure to deliver a service. When a route has every path used and every train formed at the maximum length that the line can accommodate, capacity of stock is the last measure available. So trains that can handle the maximum load efficiently are the only choice.
For a look at what can be achieved, look at Thameslink. 12-car trains that can swallow 1700 passengers in safety through wide fast opening doors, wide through gangways to enable passenger movement, rapid acceleration to 100mph, all contributing to what has settled down as a largely reliable high capacity service. The only significant sacrifice is slightly fewer and slightly narrower seats. So a few who were quite comfortable at the expense of others don't have things all their own way but they a minority, (as ever, a voiciferous one). The majority of passengers find the new trains better than the boarding lottery and even more uncomfortable journey owing to gross overloading that existed before. Double deck just won't be considerd and probably wouldn't increase route capacity enough anyway.
I would expect the SWML and parts of the SE to follow the Thameslink high volume path as an alternative to billions of infrastructure improvement where there isn't any land available anyway.

 

[quantinghome]

I used a couple of double deck RER trains in Paris recently and thought what a good idea they are.

I prefer the Belgian intercity double-deckers myself. Each carriage can seat 140 people. DD is a good idea if they can fit within existing infrastructure. Unfortunately in the UK, they can't. Complete rebuild of existing lines or new lines are the only way to do it.

 

[AM9]

I prefer the Belgian intercity double-deckers myself. Each carriage can seat 140 people. ...

Presumably they are at least 23m long, maybe 25m or more.

... DD is a good idea if they can fit within existing infrastructure. Unfortunately in the UK, they can't. Complete rebuild of existing lines or new lines are the only way to do it.

Which won't happen for a very high cost and no real benefit.

 

[hwl]

Presumably they are at least 23m long, maybe 25m or more.

Which won't happen for a very high cost and no real benefit.

26m...

 

[AM9]

26m...

So that would limit UK trains to about 9 cars on most main lines, - just under 1200 seats if all standard.

 

[quantinghome]

So that would limit UK trains to about 9 cars on most main lines, - just under 1200 seats if all standard.

Yes, in theory, but as you say it's got zero chance of happening on the existing network, HS1 excepted.

 

[Antman]

Reading to the city is going to be over an hour. 455s ran on many journeys over an hour. Yet again fares rise and service reduces with new high density stock. Commuter volumes are actually falling (peak loadings) as the world changes.

319 (early) had 960 seats over 12 coaches (or so). A desiro is 666 isn’t it. So almost fifty per cent more seats on 319s... and if we are ripping London apart for CR2, should that not be at a larger loading gauge ? And the route planned for it. If you get on the bullet train at the NRM the extra width available is so noticeable ...

 

[AM9]

Reading to the city is going to be over an hour. 455s ran on many journeys over an hour. Yet again fares rise and service reduces with new high density stock.

Passengers from Reading will have the choice of class 387s, class 80x and class 345s. There is no shortage of toilet facilities on either of the former classes

Commuter volumes are actually falling (peak loadings) as the world changes.

What do you mean by peak loading?

 

[AM9]

... 319 (early) had 960 seats over 12 coaches (or so). A desiro is 666 isn’t it. So almost fifty per cent more seats on 319s... and if we are ripping London apart for CR2, should that not be at a larger loading gauge ? And the route planned for it. If you get on the bullet train at the NRM the extra width available is so noticeable ...

Class 319s on Thameslink services couldn't operate as 12-car, therefore by your reckoning, they have a maximum of 640 seats, which is less than a class 700/1. In addition, there was not much room for standees when all the seats were occupied, maybe another 150 per unit. Loaded like that would be a squeeze that was both hazardous for passengers and destroyed dwell times, especially in the core. In addition, even with the assistance of classes 377/2s, 377/5s and 387s, some peak trains still left many passengers having to wait for a second or even a third train to arrive before they could board. That's why seasoned Thameslink passengers are comfortable with trains that have double the capacity of a fully stuffed class 319 fleet. Add to that the more frequent service, and faster journey times, which means that there are only a few whingers left complaining that they can't get their own favourite seat everyday. The class 700 style of trains are the future of high density outer suburban services where there is zero chance of duplicating tracks into city centres.
Crossrail(1)'s tunnels are built to the UIC GB structure gauge which is large enough to accommodate the existing Paris RER trains despite the extreme difficulties that were encountered threading such a large tunnel through the labyrinth of existing subterranean burrowings. For obvious reasons, it has been fitted out to UK mainline standards otherwise passengers would need to jump across the gap from the platform edges. The tunnels could be fitted out for RER-sized stock when the mainline is ready, (they have plenty of time to complete the planning of that little project though)! There is no reason to suspect that CR2 won't similarly be equipped.

 

[Antman]

I tried to match coach numbers as twelve cars. My point is that, as you seem to be supporting, a twelve coach train has basically the same number of seats as an eight coach one had 30 years ago. Those whingers (paying customers) have a right, I suggest, to expect an improvement in their services and a seat (whatever the railway people say) for the vastly increased fares they have been expected to pay. In reality, they don’t care about dwell times, they care about sitting on a train from say St Albans to the City and not standing all the way. Every day.

It seems laughable that the justification for having no more seats on fifty per cent longer trains is that the old trains couldn’t work as longer trains. Which is what you’re basically saying.

Everyone understands that there needs to be a more intensive service and that the Uk has particular traffic densities and flows (passengers and trains) that are almost unique, but time and again, the answer is to ignore what the passengers want. In favour of what suits the railway. Who really thinks that trains that are half as long again as before but with the same number of seats is an improvement - all it means is that you’re just as likely to be standing, just that you’ve got up to another 700 people stood next to you.... and it really isn’t acceptable to be running trains over these lengths of journeys where so so many passengers consistently Fail to get a seat. The passengers are not comfortable with it. They are begrudgingly accepting they have to stand. Because that’s what the trains offer. It isn’t a choice to commute like this. And the railway takes advantage of the fact those passengers pay the same high fares to not get a seat.

 

[hwl]

I tried to match coach numbers as twelve cars. My point is that, as you seem to be supporting, a twelve coach train has basically the same number of seats as an eight coach one had 30 years ago. Those whingers (paying customers) have a right, I suggest, to expect an improvement in their services and a seat (whatever the railway people say) for the vastly increased fares they have been expected to pay. In reality, they don’t care about dwell times, they care about sitting on a train from say St Albans to the City and not standing all the way. Every day.

Given the growth just getting on the train in the first place is a big improvement for some...
More seats for those further out equals fewer able to board closer in.

Having experienced some of the worst individual 319 loadings myself the 700s are a huge improvement. A seat for everyone is a myth.

London commuter numbers are now rising again Mon-Thursday

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they want to sit all the way, the easiest way is to take a slower train.

 

[Macwomble]

I used a couple of double deck RER trains in Paris recently and thought what a good idea they are.

...as did I use Sydney's double decker trains recently. Found it rather strange sitting on the lower deck with my head at platform edge level

 

[Antman]

If they want to sit all the way, the easiest way is to take a slower train.

So compromise again. The railway guys just can’t see what the issue is at all.......

All these super expensive new trains. Huge infrastructure costs. Expensive tickets. Abysmal service recently. And the offer is... go quicker and stand. Or go slower, maybe sit and have a thousand people stood up around you.....

I put up with Thameslink in about 2000-2001. It was quick, but full. And the 319s were graffitied and heavily keyed on the glass The seat filthy and grubby. They didn’t improve when I used to get them to the Dogs at Wimbledon years later either.

I just find it utterly odd that the blinkers are so on.... that the actual people who pay to travel are just commoditised and disregarded so much. It’s all about the railway and how it performs and what suits it.....

 

[AM9]

I tried to match coach numbers as twelve cars. My point is that, as you seem to be supporting, a twelve coach train has basically the same number of seats as an eight coach one had 30 years ago. Those whingers (paying customers) have a right, I suggest, to expect an improvement in their services and a seat (whatever the railway people say) for the vastly increased fares they have been expected to pay. In reality, they don’t care about dwell times, they care about sitting on a train from say St Albans to the City and not standing all the way. Every day.

It seems laughable that the justification for having no more seats on fifty per cent longer trains is that the old trains couldn’t work as longer trains. Which is what you’re basically saying.

Everyone understands that there needs to be a more intensive service and that the Uk has particular traffic densities and flows (passengers and trains) that are almost unique, but time and again, the answer is to ignore what the passengers want. In favour of what suits the railway. Who really thinks that trains that are half as long again as before but with the same number of seats is an improvement - all it means is that you’re just as likely to be standing, just that you’ve got up to another 700 people stood next to you.... and it really isn’t acceptable to be running trains over these lengths of journeys where so so many passengers consistently Fail to get a seat. The passengers are not comfortable with it. They are begrudgingly accepting they have to stand. Because that’s what the trains offer. It isn’t a choice to commute like this. And the railway takes advantage of the fact those passengers pay the same high fares to not get a seat.

You really aren't reading what so many on here have posted. The Thameslink route runs trains at the maximum lengths possible* - 12 x 20m for the Bedford to BML services and 8 x 20m for most of the metro services. It runs trains as frequent as possible, governed by the total number of trains through the core at 24 tph, the available paths on the MML shared with EM trains (up to 16tph) and whatever can be squeezed in between Southern and SE services. The trains are designed to allow over 500 passengers to board/alight within a total dwell time of 45 seconds. The interior is designed to carry the expected off-peak load (including weekend traffic) with all passengers seated. The trains are critically designed to carry a gross load of 1750 (istr) passengers - needed to ensure that all fare paying passengers can actually board a loaded train in the peak.

So, take all of that in and tell us all how you would ensure that every passenger who pays for their travel, (virtually all of them surprisingly), gets a nice comfortable set every day. I would genuinely be interested as I can't see how with the current infrastructure how it can't be done. I eagerly wait your reply.

* unfortunately, because a local MP interfered with the planning of the timetable, there was a cost-saving decision to order 5 less 12-car units meaning that some services needing 12-cars are run with 8-car sets.

 

[bastien]

Hey, the Bullied 4DDs were built in 1949. Hold that thought for a second.

Justapunter is accusing the industry of complacency. Now, the industry knew about double deck trains as a solution to overcrowding 70 years ago. Seventy years. Three-quarters of a century. A lifetime. And it's done nothing to accommodate the idea.

So who deserves the hard time they're getting here?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The cost of converting to UIC gauge in our major termini would be massive - far more than lengthening trains and platforms. So I don't think they did it wrong at all.

 

[bastien]

The cost of converting to UIC gauge in our major termini would be massive - far more than lengthening trains and platforms. So I don't think they did it wrong at all.

Or move the terminus like they have in Madrid etc.

 

[hwl]

Hey, the Bullied 4DDs were built in 1949. Hold that thought for a second.

Justapunter is accusing the industry of complacency. Now, the industry knew about double deck trains as a solution to overcrowding 70 years ago. Seventy years. Three-quarters of a century. A lifetime. And it's done nothing to accommodate the idea.

So who deserves the hard time they're getting here?

But they tried it and it didn't work so learnt from the experience.
The cost of gauge enhancements is mind blowing.

 

[Jozhua]

Anyone know what class these double deck trains that ran in the UK were?

 

[bastien]

But they tried it and it didn't work so learnt from the experience.
The cost of gauge enhancements is mind blowing.

That's my whole point, we had the chance to do this properly 70 years ago.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Anyone know what class these double deck trains that ran in the UK were?

They don't seem to have got a class number.

 

[Jozhua]

They don't seem to have got a class number.

Sorry everyone, they turned out to be the SR Class 4DD, I just assumed "DD" was a forum reference to "Double Decker"!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry everyone, they turned out to be the SR Class 4DD, I just assumed "DD" was a forum reference to "Double Decker"!

Yeah, they didn't have TOPS class numbers back then, they had the designations like CEP, CIG, VEP, REP etc, prefixed by the length.

Some newer stock got the SR style designations immediately post privatisation, e.g. the Juniper sets were originally 4-JOP (Juniper Open Porterbrook, if I recall rightly) and 8-GAT for the GatEx sets - I think this was even on the data panel.

 

[jopsuk]

If they'd survived in service long enough to reach 1973, then they would have been numbered in the 40x range (southern Railway units)- and as an oddity, would probably have have gone in as 4x7 (special purpose), and hence would have been 407- Uniquely the Southern region pre-privitisation had an actual system to number classes