My idea for Double Decker stock

[455driver]

Extensions could retract or platforms could:

So the train stops, the extensions are extended and locked in position, the doors are released, passengers get off/on, doors are closed, extensions are retracted and locked into place, train sets off.

Can you see a problem with the timetable there?

 

[edwin_m]

I have in my possession a damaged model of a section of double deck stock that was developed as a concept by BR Research in the 70s. My then boss was involved in the project and bequeathed the model to the NRM but they didn't want it. There was also a file of papers that I think the NRM did take.

The model shows inward-facing seats on the lower deck and 2+2 on the upper, with very limited headroom under the outer rows of seats. I think the body setions are also short, although not having a whole one I can't tell. Like all double deckers for high platforms, entrances need steps down to the lower deck and up to the upper one, so dwell times would be significantly longer.

 

[Eagle]

2+2 over 1+1 seating, then? The increase in capacity is pretty small in that case, and due to longer dwell times there may end up being fewer services, so that could even result in a net decrease of capacity.

 

[Loki]

Can you see a problem with the timetable there?

Uhm... not really? These things work about as fast as the doors and at the same time too. Especially the train mounted ones.

 

[455driver]

Uhm... not really? These things work about as fast as the doors and at the same time too. Especially the train mounted ones.

So you think that in this 'elf ind safti' obsessed Country that the railways can have these steps extending as the doors are opening do you!

You are more confident than me on that one then.

 

[Trainfan344]

So you think that in this 'elf ind safti' obsessed Country that the railways can have these steps extending as the doors are opening do you!

You are more confident than me on that one then.

What I believe he is on about is the system that is featured on Class 390 which have a retractable step which comes out and tucks away again on the train, if a system like this could be fitted to other types of trains as he suggested then it could be a possibility.

 

[Loki]

What I believe he is on about is the system that is featured on Class 390 which have a retractable step which comes out and tucks away again on the train, if a system like this could be fitted to other types of trains as he suggested then it could be a possibility.

That thing, yes.

 

[455driver]

But that isnt very big and the one to fit 'normal' stock to UIC platforms would have to be much much bigger.

 

[Loki]

But that isnt very big and the one to fit 'normal' stock to UIC platforms would have to be much much bigger.

Not really that big. Take a look at the picture I posed on the previous page. That platform is UIC and the gap is quite acceptable. If I calculated it right the average extension should be somewhere about 20 inches if not even less.
That would be:
(UIC GA width - W10 width at platform) / 2.

 

[HSTEd]

Such systems are already in operation on Eurostar.

 

[tranzitjim]

Sydney Australia is 100% double deck suburban network.

They are also high level platforms much like what the UK has. I am not sure how height and width go in relation to the UK, except I would say it is most likely very similar at least.

Melbourne Australia had a once off demonstration DD for ten years from the 1990s. It was slightly smaller than the Sydney model as it had to clear historic station roofs at one location.

 

[Eagle]

The height of the rolling stock will certainly be a lot more than that in the UK.

 

[HSTEd]

It should be noted that LTS would not necessarily require an overnight conversion since two terminal stations are available.

Unconverted services could run into Liverpool Street until such time as they are converted and put into Fenchurch street again.

 

[DownSouth]

Sydney Australia is 100% double deck suburban network.

They are also high level platforms much like what the UK has. I am not sure how height and width go in relation to the UK, except I would say it is most likely very similar at least.

Melbourne Australia had a once off demonstration DD for ten years from the 1990s. It was slightly smaller than the Sydney model as it had to clear historic station roofs at one location.

Sydney EMUs are 20.32m long per car, up to 3.03m wide and up to 4.41m tall. The carbody designs have good form for crashworthiness, if anybody is concerned about structural integrity. The Sydney EMUs also coexist quite happily with single-deck stock using the same platforms, including the Australian-built Budd-designed coaches chosen as a superior choice to the BREL Mark 3 bid for the XPT.

Applying that to a UK outline, the width could easily be trimmed in as necessary if seats were laid out in a 2+2 format (instead of 3+2 on a Sydney EMU) with a slightly wider aisle also allowing for more standing space. No change would need to be made to platforms or lateral clearances if British-spec DD units were built narrower.

The height is a bigger issue, the lowest Sydney EMU class is 4.36m tall while the tallest British rolling stock I can find is the Hitachi Class 395 at 3.81m. Even if 50mm could be trimmed off the top for a British-spec DD unit you would still need to find 500mm, which should only need to be a difficult task where there tunnels.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The height of the rolling stock will certainly be a lot more than that in the UK.

Only a 550mm difference between the tallest British rolling stock and the shortest of the Sydney DD EMUs. Some lowering of floors on some tunnels would be necessary, but apart from that it shouldn't be any harder than doing a renewal/rebuild of the overhead electrical supply, large parts of which are probably well overdue for a rebuild anyway.

 

[jopsuk]

you would still need to find 500mm, which should only need to be a difficult task where there tunnels.

I admire your optimism,, but there's an awful lot of locations with bridges that the existing stock only just fits through. The one bright spot for you on this is that if/when the 3rd rail network (where many of the lines with the capacity issues are) is converted to OHL, these will need sorted anyway- if the project is forward looking it would include more than just space for the wires.

 

[starrymarkb]

Earlier this year I caught one of the new Talent 2 low floor units in Germany. At low level regional style platforms the retractable step gives level boarding and extended until it touched the platform. At Berlin Hbf there was quite a step up from the train as the ICE platform height is much taller then the regional one.

 

[Matt Taylor]

You can see from this image that the DD stock in Sydney has bigger dimensions:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40172673@N03/8731312919/in/set-72157633477973972


It has an extra 63cm in height and an extra 24cm in width comapred to a Class 450 Desiro.

 

[DownSouth]

You can see from this image that the DD stock in Sydney has bigger dimensions:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40172673@N03/8731312919/in/set-72157633477973972


It has an extra 63cm in height and an extra 24cm in width comapred to a Class 450 Desiro.

The extra width wouldn't be compulsory for a British-spec DD unit, the EMUs in Sydney all have 3+2 seating so the narrower cross-section required for Britain could easily handle 2+2 with a slightly wider aisle instead.

 

[LexyBoy]

I'm sure we'll be seeing a UK design soon...

 

[joeykins82]

By the time you've added in the stairwells and gangways at each end of the car to get to the lower and upper decks you'd probably end up with a similar overall seating capacity to what you'd get out of current generation suburban 20m cars with 3+2 config seating, except you'd have no overhead storage for luggage so everyone would be putting their stuff on the adjacent seats. It's a total non-starter outside of new lines built specifically with double deck trains in mind.

 

[southern442]

2+2 over 1+1 seating, then? The increase in capacity is pretty small in that case, and due to longer dwell times there may end up being fewer services, so that could even result in a net decrease of capacity.

I don't think the maximum we can achieve is 1+1, the top deck isn't of much worry capacity wise, but the lower deck we could see a 3+0, 4+0 or 3+1 configuration so that there is an increase in capacity.

 

[jopsuk]

The extra width wouldn't be compulsory for a British-spec DD unit, the EMUs in Sydney all have 3+2 seating so the narrower cross-section required for Britain could easily handle 2+2 with a slightly wider aisle instead.

I reckon the extra width is needed to stop the stairways from being hilariously narrow

 

[DJL]

Coach design aside; if we are talking about self contained routes why not build a double deck platform as well?

That way you don't need space for a stair well (except maybe for emergency exit - which could be a ladder built into the side of the carriage with the doors offset from the floor below) which gives a boost in capacity and reduces dwell time with more doors available.
It would also mean you don't need to have special platform level section specifically for wheelchairs, buggies, bikes etc. etc.


I would love to see a practical double-decker train but I honestly can't see it happening on any existing routes any time in the next 50 years.
Hopefully I'll be proven wrong!

 

[HSTEd]

Talgo have two through decks on a unit now that fits in the UIC gauge.

But I think the best chance for UIC gauge in suburban use involves new Crossrail esque projects that take over relatively short sections of regular line which can then be gauge cleared.

 

[Chrisgr31]

You are all missing the obvious solution because you are assuming the passengers have to stand or sit . So instead lets get them to lie down. You therefore have a train which is a series of drawers, the width of the existing stock, 2ft high, 2ft wide. Train arrives at a station, empty drawers slide open, passengers climb in the one they want, using a ladder like the one on a bunk bed if necessary.

Of course in the event of a crash it would save time and money as the drawers would double up as coffins, and could just be buried with contents in them! :roll:

 

[southern442]

You are all missing the obvious solution because you are assuming the passengers have to stand or sit . So instead lets get them to lie down. You therefore have a train which is a series of drawers, the width of the existing stock, 2ft high, 2ft wide. Train arrives at a station, empty drawers slide open, passengers climb in the one they want, using a ladder like the one on a bunk bed if necessary.

Of course in the event of a crash it would save time and money as the drawers would double up as coffins, and could just be buried with contents in them! :roll:

Or have those Japanese "pod hotels" onboard

 

[edwin_m]

Or hang half the passengers by meat hooks from the ceiling and have the others sit on the floor?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Or have those Japanese "pod hotels" onboard

Now there's an idea for new sleeper stock!

 

[4-6-2 Coast]

CalTrain operates a fleet of what they call "gallery stock" on the commuter network in SanFrancisco, that I had a chance to travel on back around 2005 or 6. It's a concept that I've always thought had great potential here in the UK to solve our loading gauge issue. The lower level is conventional 2+2 seating, with very low headroom over the seats, but full height over the aisle. The upper deck is a 1+1 configuration, with 2 very narrow aisles either side of an opening to the lower deck. At 6'5" I found it tight but not uncomfortable to sit on either the upper or the lower decks - the upper being at about my shoulder height as I stood in the aisle on the lower deck.

Wiki has a photo that sort of shows it here.
Slightly better photo here.

 

[southern442]

Now there's an idea for new sleeper stock!

TV and free wifi
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

CalTrain operates a fleet of what they call "gallery stock" on the commuter network in SanFrancisco, that I had a chance to travel on back around 2005 or 6. It's a concept that I've always thought had great potential here in the UK to solve our loading gauge issue. The lower level is conventional 2+2 seating, with very low headroom over the seats, but full height over the aisle. The upper deck is a 1+1 configuration, with 2 very narrow aisles either side of an opening to the lower deck. At 6'5" I found it tight but not uncomfortable to sit on either the upper or the lower decks - the upper being at about my shoulder height as I stood in the aisle on the lower deck.

Wiki has a photo that sort of shows it here.
Slightly better photo here.

It is an interesting idea, but the seating in the top deck would need to be at least 2+1 for there even to be a point in it.