starrymarkb
Established Member
The huge cost of altering tunnels and platforms
The only way to cope with capacity is longer trains less frequently.
We have heard so much about passenger increases over the last 20 years or so, it would be interesting to know what the change in passenger numbers is and what the change in seat numbers in the overall fleet is. I suspect the latter has actually gone down.
The Telegraph said:Passenger miles - the total number of miles travelled by all passengers - grew by 91pc between 1996 and 2012. But the rail fleet increased by only 12pc over the same period.
Despite all of the wonders of modern technology we haven't made a train with a better, more comfortable seat for passengers when compared to a nearly 40 year old train? Why is that? Why do we accept that?
The seats are thinner, less well padded and do not line up with the windows in order to allow more seating to be installed. Most people prefer having a seat to no seat at all, regardless of the seats (subjective) comfortableness.
As for the straighter seat pitch, it's supposed to help posture
As someone of reasonable height I prefer the higher seat backs.
Same space? Err... No. Older rolling stock tended to have shorter carriage lengths and as such could have a wider profile with less taper at each end.
Though, of course, one of the drivers of the growth that the railway has enjoyed over the last few decades is BR's decision in the 1980s to run shorter trains more frequently. I'm not sure going back on that is a great idea...
In terms of (standard class) comfort, I have yet to sample any UK coach that matches the comfort of a Bulleid SR Open Second - good seat padding and adequate width.
What would stop the use of double decker trains in the future (apart from the huge cost of altering platforms, tunnels, etc)?
Lack of insight 60 years ago when 25kv electrification started. All ac electrified lines could operate double decker trains to-day had the nettle been grasped then. Who knows, HS2 could have been avoided had these trains been introduced.
Sorry for the late response to this, but even this subject gets annoying at times, so i tend to avoid it. Ive given up expecting rolling stock to get better, and i prefer to avoid the 'your an enthusiast and not a real person' sentiments that some ... yaddy yadda yadda BS.
I think that just demonstrates how twisted "passenger comfort surveys" are.In passenger comfort surveys modern stock came out on top, such as the 222s.
If the subject gets annoying then why are you replying?
I can't even be bothered to reply to your points as most are utter rubbish. In passenger comfort surveys modern stock came out on top, such as the 222s. I regret to inform you that a 222 is not a 180 or 175.
Now, please go back to your pitiful existence measuring legroom with your tape, troll.
I think that just demonstrates how twisted "passenger comfort surveys" are.
But you forget! It's much easier to put it all down to skimpy cost-cutting than actually think it through
At the end of the day, passenger numbers are increasing year on year. If we can't extend trains anymore than we have no choice but to fit more seats in the existing space we have. A fact some people seem to ignore.
Indeed, it would be nice to have 400m platforms like most major stations on the continent.
But you try getting most passengers to actually walk up the platform more than 10m away from the station entrance/footbridge!
The tallest rolling stock on British AC classic lines that I can find dimensions for is the Mark 4 at 3.79 metres.By how many feet or meters would the tracks have to be lowered (or stuff raised) to allow for double decker trains running on AC?
I agree it will be difficult to find that 600mm in areas where the trains have already grown into a snug fit with older infrastructure is already a snug fit. Even if legislation were passed to remove all heritage listings from structures still being used for their original purpose, there's still a lot of work to be done.I thought the trains in Sydney were brilliant as well. Would be made up if we could have something similar in Liverpool. I think car use would plummet on several key routes. Much easier said than done of course.
Having double deck trains would increase dwell times significantly, particularly as doors would at the ends of carriages (similar to Mark IIIs) and not give as many seats as people expect - don't forget the stairs required.
The extended dwells would consequently reduce track capacity with fewer seats thereby being offered in a given amount of time.
Makes you wonder how the rest of the world cope with double deck trains given how rubbish they are. If having double deckers was any good they would try and do it on bus routes as well in this country. Erm.
Double decker buses do have longer dwell times than single ones and also not many seats downstiars these days due to wheelchair bays and obviously the stairs.
Makes you wonder how the rest of the world cope with double deck trains given how rubbish they are. If having double deckers was any good they would try and do it on bus routes as well in this country. Erm.
Well the continent just goes for longer vehicles (with 3/4 pairs of doors per side)
Try one of these which run from Geneva out of a small village a few miles north of the city.
Boris would have a heart attack at the thought of one of those in London
Completely baseless twaddle.Having double deck trains would increase dwell times significantly, particularly as doors would at the ends of carriages (similar to Mark IIIs) and not give as many seats as people expect - don't forget the stairs required.
The extended dwells would consequently reduce track capacity with fewer seats thereby being offered in a given amount of time.
Completely baseless twaddle.
DD trains have higher capacity for the length of the train. Fact.
The minor increase in dwell time is far outweighed by the higher capacity of the trains to give a total increase in capacity per hour. Fact.
If the infrastructure was sorted out, the only thing stopping it from working in Britain would be if the passengers are too stupid to work it out. Are they?
Britain would be if the passengers are too stupid to work it out. Are they?