Train design - what next?

[Pugwash]

Less luggage space so more passengers can be squeezed in I expect.

 

[tbtc]

Or smaller windows...

That'd be an interesting one to see - individual windows like on planes?

 

[stut]

That'd be an interesting one to see - individual windows like on planes?

Works for Shinkansen. Of course, bigger windows could also do the job, or relatively seamless ones - 377s aren't bad for this, f'rexample.

Or better still, the wonderfully kitsch rapi:t trains!

 

[ntg]

I think double deckers may only be a matter of time. There's only so long you can make a train after all. What else can happened after train length, speed and frequency is maxed out? There must be a way to work out when the trade off between dwell time and frequency of services favours increasing the capacity of an individual train by 80% or whatever it would be.

Would require massive works on lowering the floors of every tunnel/birdge on a lot of major lines so there's every chance that by the time it's required the lines are far too busy to shut down a whole tunnel for several months while the floor is dug up and the tracks relaid, in which case we'd just have to make do with a saturated network or legislate staggered working hours to mitigate the peak usage.

 

[gnolife]

For the Chat Moss route, I can see these turning up quite regularly

I can see idiots trying to nick the wires at night, especially around the Eccles area

 

[tbtc]

I think double deckers may only be a matter of time. There's only so long you can make a train after all. What else can happened after train length, speed and frequency is maxed out? There must be a way to work out when the trade off between dwell time and frequency of services favours increasing the capacity of an individual train by 80% or whatever it would be

It's a good question - twelve coach EMUs are great but there becomes a limit where you just can't keep extending and extending.

The problem I've always had with double deckers is the need for self contained services - you'd have to restrict them to something like C2C to ensure that you got the full benefit of all the infrastructure works needed (i.e. so that every train using the infrastructure was double decker)

 

[34D]

If we had universal phone chargers then I'd suggest something like that - certainly things like plugs would be an improvement on services designed to take people longer distances.

Surely USB micro _is_ the standard mobile charger?

Noooooooooo.....Please noooooooo!........

Unless us Drivers can be issued with waders and uniforms supplied by North Face!

Does the new stuff like 375/377/450 still leak like the older stock does?

The problem I've always had with double deckers is the need for self contained services - you'd have to restrict them to something like C2C to ensure that you got the full benefit of all the infrastructure works needed (i.e. so that every train using the infrastructure was double decker)

So like crossrail?

Regarding couplers, dellner and scarfenberg are essentially the same, but at different heights (the dellners on voyagers/pendolinae are at a different height than 377s). These could easily be altered to a common european height, thereby allowing 350s to rescue pendolinos etc.

Between Leeds and Neville Hill depot it is quite feasible that one train will be BSI (sprinter), the next tightlock (class 321), then voyager dellner, then screw (class 91), then desiro dellner (185), then a freight train who's wagons have swing buckeyes.

 

[Nonsense]

Unfortunately seats that line up with the windows is impractical since that would have seven or eight table bays at most... which is 56/64 seats per coach in second class, and no airline seats.

Why not have windows that line up with seats instead? Design the exterior to align with the seating plan instead.

 

[JGR]

Power sockets, wifi that's actually usable, and a PA system which is actually understandable would be my personal wishlist from a traveller point of view.
Windows that vaguely line up with seats is minor but worth reiterating.

From an operational point of view, a universal coupler would be very useful.
I'm not quite so keen on using dual electric/diesel units just for power failures, as it's wasteful to lug loads of dense diesel and a ludicrously massive and voluminous internal combustion engine for a relatively rare event. However, it would be useful for routes which are only partly electrified.
Speaking of power failures, it would be nice to have trains with better batteries to run the radio, PA system, computer, etc for more than five minutes after an incident.

Double decker would be nice, but probably only feasible on enclosed, busy routes like HS1/2, or perhaps on Crossrail, if the Paddington end was ever loading-gauge adjusted (the tunnels are just large enough for double deckers).
The double decker trains on the RER are very handy if you have to brave Paris at peak times, and Crossrail is largely analogous to that setup.

It would also be helpful to avoid trains which are cut in half by the lack of a gangway between MUs, but I can't see a good solution to that TBH.

 

[moonrakerz]

I think it is also important that the seats are usable. Being 6'3" ................15-20% of the population is bigger than me!

I've actually started avoiding certain trains and started using my car as the trains are too uncomfortable with lack of legroom and encroaching into the space of the seat next to me.

The move to airline style seats is making this worse as rarely can I sit in them (My knees touch the seat in front on Southern 377's so these are very uncomfortable and hence I head for the table seats)

I am a "meagre" 6ft and totally agree with the comments above. My local trains are 150/3/8/9s; without exception, when in the airline style seating my knees are jammed firmly into the back of the seat in front - most uncomfortable ! or I can go for a table and play "kneeseys" with the passenger opposite.
Last week I travelled on a LM 17"something" - was pleasantly surprised to find that my knees weren't jammed up against the seat in front - and the a/c worked

 

[Kneedown]

Does the new stuff like 375/377/450 still leak like the older stock does?

I can't comment on newer stock as we don't have any that's gangwayed, but various things have been tried over the years up to, and including the latest refurbishments, all without success.

We can put man on the moon but it seems we can't design a leak/draughtproof door.

 

[Harbon 1]

don't put sewage tanks next to the exhaust? was this something the designers of the voyagers missed?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
for double deckers, they might not be that far away, with wagons getting ever lower, why not move underfloor equipment elsewhere and lower the floor of the carriage with the area above the bogies being standard height with doors and couplers. and of course with the super-low bogies and wheels, there could be a design on the table soon

 

[SovietGaz]

More leg room, being taller like the other chap I find a real problem fitting being the seats, I have to have a table seat...

Ideally I would love to see window aligned seating and, because I'm nostalgic, I would love to see more hauled services but that will never happen

I've just had enough of being treated like cattle and getting ripped off for it... If it can happen there's a real gap in the market for an enjoyable rail experience like the WSMR company if there was a way around the red tape...

 

[LE Greys]

don't put sewage tanks next to the exhaust? was this something the designers of the voyagers missed?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
for double deckers, they might not be that far away, with wagons getting ever lower, why not move underfloor equipment elsewhere and lower the floor of the carriage with the area above the bogies being standard height with doors and couplers. and of course with the super-low bogies and wheels, there could be a design on the table soon

Double-decking would probably be more practical on the Southern, overhead wire clearance can be decidedly non-standard. Trains would have to be narrower below platform level than continental ones, with the lower deck in a well between the bogies. Doors, wheelchair/luggage compartments and disabled toilets would have to be over the bogies. However, current loading gauges are getting close to practical DD height and width. It's do-able.

Hopefully, the next stage will be a standard local unit for rural services, something like a modified 172 with doors at the ends. There really ought to be a PEP-replacement as well, probably a 378 or something similar, or perhaps a development of Crossrail/Thameslink stock. 313s, 314s, 315s, 455s, 456s, 507s and 508s will be history, as will Pacers and Sprinters on rural services - 172s can replace them on suburban services. A bit later could be a standard outer-suburban unit using newer technology than the current crop, to replace the MkIII-based crop.

Then of course, there's whatever replaces 225s and the remaining HSTs. After IEP, there should be sufficient through services from HS2 and the possible HS3 that there will no longer be any need for extensive on-board services. I'm expecting HS2 to out-compete the ECML on long-distance passenger flows (unfortunately for me, but why should people who live in the Home Counties mind changing to get to Scotland :roll: ). The first post-HS2 generation of inter-city stock will be much more Voyager/Javelin like, since it will cater for shorter-distance flows such as the Leeds and York semi-fasts. So trolley catering, limited first class and shorter trains sometimes running in pairs to reduce costs. It might be called IEP-2.

On freight, which we haven't really considered, I'm half-expecting an a.c. electro-diesel so that it can run trains off the wires at reduced speed. It's hard to remove a container when under the wires, and this will save a lot of shunting moves. Hopefully, there will be some smaller locos as well, or an increased use of MPVs to avoid having Type 5 traction on light duties. Finally, there really must be a new standard shunter, Gronks looked dated 20 years ago.

 

[150001]

Comfortable seats with a light interior would be great! Having large windows, good legroom power sockets is also pleasant. Having tables with a guard underneath would end the feet on the seats issue too. I think a hybrid diesel/electric current train would be good too with a attractive exterior design. I believe a modified Class 378 would provide this easily although a new version of the Class 170/171 would be excellent!

 

[TrainBoy98]

On the note of end gangways between trains, why cant more be like the 458s (the only thing i like about them) which is tucked under a slanted door until needed, therefore being stramlined as well as being able to interconnect. Surely this would be a bonus?

Also, couldnt we do something like the French did with the TGV Duplex? they seemed to work it out well?

Another point, couldnt there be more recovery engines (deisel or otherwise) in case of breakdowns/power failiures instead of having trains that are bi-mode?

 

[ainsworth74]

Another point, couldnt there be more recovery engines (deisel or otherwise) in case of breakdowns/power failiures instead of having trains that are bi-mode?

You want to pay to keep the stabled, fuelled, maintained and sufficient drivers with route knowledge/pay FOCs to provide drivers? Because that's what you'll have to do in order to have that happen.

 

[jopsuk]

The 458 gangway looks fairly neat but doesn't work that well- I think they prefer to only couple/decouple in the depot? It isn't suitable for passenger use as far as I know. There are Japanese units that have even neater "hidden" gangways, but they're wider trains. The 380s have a gangway that folds back at a slant but is still exposed.

The French clearances (height and width) are larger. Duplex wasn't their first double decker stock by a long way. We simply can't fit double decker stock on our routes.

Lots more locos sitting around idle all day would be rather expensive

 

[LE Greys]

Comfortable seats with a light interior would be great! Having large windows, good legroom power sockets is also pleasant. Having tables with a guard underneath would end the feet on the seats issue too. I think a hybrid diesel/electric current train would be good too with a attractive exterior design. I believe a modified Class 378 would provide this easily although a new version of the Class 170/171 would be excellent!

Sounds like a MkI!

<EDIT> Except for the power sockets.

 

[Wolfie]

Why not have windows that line up with seats instead? Design the exterior to align with the seating plan instead.

Hum, lets see....

Possible structural soundness issues, potential production complications, an inability to refurbish and change the seating layout .....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Double decker would be nice, but probably only feasible on enclosed, busy routes like HS1/2, or perhaps on Crossrail, if the Paddington end was ever loading-gauge adjusted (the tunnels are just large enough for double deckers).
The double decker trains on the RER are very handy if you have to brave Paris at peak times, and Crossrail is largely analogous to that setup.

Are you really sure that Paddington is the only loading gauge issue?

On the note of end gangways between trains, why cant more be like the 458s (the only thing i like about them) which is tucked under a slanted door until needed, therefore being stramlined as well as being able to interconnect. Surely this would be a bonus?

The 458 front-end is so successful it is being removed and replaced by a 350-like front-end/gangway in the refurbishment/incorporation of the 460s.

 

[ainsworth74]

Possible structural soundness issues, potential production complications, an inability to refurbish and change the seating layout

Works on the 185s...

 

[HSTEd]

What about S-stock full width gangways inside units?

Would enable you to get away with only one vestibule in each coach.... apart from one end ofcourse.


Attempting to tailor the window layout to your desired seat layout is a nightmare in terms of not being able to chance the seat layout for the entire length of service of the train, and leading to hundreds of different subclasses with major structural differences from one another.

 

[JGR]

Are you really sure that Paddington is the only loading gauge issue?

By Paddington end, I mean everything between Paddington and Maindenhead/Reading.
I do not know how the loading gauge issues are at the other end(s), but they'll probably be an issue as well.