My idea for Double Decker stock

[The Planner]

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

Knew I wasn't going mad and there was a thread in the past.

 

[krus_aragon]

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

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.

Doesn't this gallery design depend on the 'gap' between the aisles on the upper level being above the walkway on the lower level, to give headroom to walk along? That's what it looks like to me. So 2+1 on the top would infer perhaps 3+2 on the bottom.

 

[southern442]

Doesn't this gallery design depend on the 'gap' between the aisles on the upper level being above the walkway on the lower level, to give headroom to walk along? That's what it looks like to me. So 2+1 on the top would infer perhaps 3+2 on the bottom.

That would be a good idea.

 

[Spaceflower]

How are you going to make it accessible to all?

What about revenue protection?

 

[4-6-2 Coast]

That would be a good idea.

I see no reason why it couldn't be done. 3+2 on the main level and 2+1 on the upper would yield a very high density indeed.

How are you going to make it accessible to all?

What about revenue protection?

One of the main functions of the CalTrain stock was to carry bikes. Several carriages had large numbers of main deck seats removed in favour of bike racks. My recollection is that the main deck ran the length of the carriage, over the bogies, but this arrangement probably wouldn't fit within the loading gauge here. To fit there would have to be vestibules over the bogies at standard height, with say two steps down to the lower deck between the bogies, and two steps up to the upper level. Provision for standees, wheelchairs, luggage, etc, could be made in the vestibule area rather than the dual-level part of the carriage.

I'm not sure how revenue protection enters into it?

 

[Spaceflower]

I see no reason why it couldn't be done. 3+2 on the main level and 2+1 on the upper would yield a very high density indeed.



One of the main functions of the CalTrain stock was to carry bikes. Several carriages had large numbers of main deck seats removed in favour of bike racks. My recollection is that the main deck ran the length of the carriage, over the bogies, but this arrangement probably wouldn't fit within the loading gauge here. To fit there would have to be vestibules over the bogies at standard height, with say two steps down to the lower deck between the bogies, and two steps up to the upper level. Provision for standees, wheelchairs, luggage, etc, could be made in the vestibule area rather than the dual-level part of the carriage.

I'm not sure how revenue protection enters into it?

From a practical perspective. Given that on average our fares are considerably higher than those on the continent and the vast majority of RP is carried out manually. Can't you foresee some practical barriers?

 

[southern442]

From a practical perspective. Given that on average our fares are considerably higher than those on the continent and the vast majority of RP is carried out manually. Can't you foresee some practical barriers?

But these trains would be used on suburban services, where ticket checks don't normally happen. In the case that it did happen, what would the problem be in having two officers across the decks? Or just one that went up and down? (the latter would take more time)

 

[4-6-2 Coast]

From a practical perspective. Given that on average our fares are considerably higher than those on the continent and the vast majority of RP is carried out manually. Can't you foresee some practical barriers?

On a type of stock with two separate, continuous decks with internal stairs, yes someone could evade an RP officer by changing levels and doubling back. With an open gallery however, it would be obvious to the officer what they were doing no matter which level they're on.

Can't remember the last time I had my ticket checked on a commuter run... Having said that will ensure it happens to me tomorrow!

 

[Bill EWS]

On the Chicago DD trains passengers assist the ticket inspection and collection by streching down and handing them to the collector who meets them half way by streching up to them. I noticed too that some passengers stick the ticket into the bottom edge of the flooring edge where the ticket collector just streches up to get them.

 

[whhistle]

This is where they should start re-building lines with twice the width as we have now.
Yes, a huge cost but it's either that or we continue to retro fit half-working ideas to our old fashioned system and hope it sticks for the next 10-20 years.

 

[jopsuk]

Twice the width? Maybe a bit excessive. There's not really any need to go bigger than GC+ (which is what HS1 can handle). That's fine for double deckers- indeed, larger double deckers than eg TGV Duplex. GC+ allows 3.15m width and 4.65m height (rail to roof). Maximum width, as far as I know, for any UK mainline stock is 2.8m (ish) and height 4.13m - note many lines are more restictive than this, and length plays a role as well for width, especially on curved platforms.

We could, if we were mad, go for clearence that would allow similar carriages to Amtrak's double deckers. Those are 25.91m long, 3.1m wide and 4.93m high.

Or for even madder, we could go Channel Tunnel loading gauge, allowing full height double deckers with the lower deck at something close to our current platform height.

 

[Loki]

No need to clear for more than GA or GB at worst in practice as even in GA you could fit all types of passengers stock (DD included) and all types of containers. You only need GC for high speed lines because those trains could use extra space for transformers and tunnel air flow.

 

[broadgage]

By throwing enough money and effort at the problem, it would probably be possible to devise some form of cramped and not very satisfactory double decker rolling stock that would fit within the present or likely UK loading gauge.

However the point would assuredly come when it would be easier to run longer trains of conventional stock.
The cost of rebuilding London termini to take longer trains would be very substantial indeed, but might compare well with the costs an compromises of double deck trains.
A 16 car conventional train would take twice as many passengers as an 8 car one, maybe a handful more if fewer driving cabs were provided.
An 8 car double decker train wont, by the most optimistic assumptions, carry anything like twice the passengers of a similar length single deck train.

In many cases, ONLY the London terminal stations would need rebuilding to take much longer trains.
If say Waterloo was rebuilt to take 16 or 20 car trains, then selective door opening would be used elswhere. "for Surbiton and Woking allight from the front 12 cars only, for Basingstoke alight from the front 10 coaches only"

Rebuilding a major London terminal though hugely expensive, might compare favourably with double deck trains or new routes.

 

[HSTEd]

Or we could build Shinkansen all over the place.
Parallel all major main lines.

 

[jopsuk]

The land-take to rebuild a terminal with longer platforms would be immense. For example, at Kings Cross to extend the main shed platforms enough the station throat pointwork would have to be where the canal is. At Waterloo, the lines curve off to the south before curving back to head west, avoiding Lambeth Palace Gardens and Archbishop's Park.

At Charing Cross and Cannon Street you would need wider bridges

Liverpool Street station throat is underground with skyscraper foundations either side

London Bridge would require a fair bit of demolition, but nothing major

St Pancras has the junctions/curves for HS1 as a limit

Euston the throat squeezes under Hampstead Road, past some tower blocks.

Marylebone is very cramped

Paddington the platform ends aready quite narrow and cruved because the station would ideally be where the canal basin is, but isn't.

Victoria- hemmed in by VERY expensive property.

 

[edwin_m]

...which is probably why Crossrail, Crossrail 2, Crossrail 3 etc is the way forward. These should allow more trains to run because the number of platforms at the terminus and the time taken for passengers to board/alight is the factor that ultimately limits the capacity on most commuter routes.

With Crossrails many passengers will stay on the train to a station more convenient for their destination, rather than all of them getting off at the terminus and mostly heading for the Tube. However rapid boarding and alighting is crucial, particularly as some central stations will have both taking place on the same train. This is more easily achieved with single deck stock, as used by all the busiest Metro services around the world as far as I'm aware.

 

[jopsuk]

Very much. "Metro" and "suburban" type services terminating in the city centre is a terrible arrnagement for capacity- far better to have two "trees" of branches with a connecting core. Reduces the pressure on turnarounds.

 

[HSTEd]

Well the most crowded metro railway line in the western world (so excluding Japan which is just nuts) uses double deck stock extensively..... with transverse seating.

So its not a hard rule for metro routes.

 

[edwin_m]

Well the most crowded metro railway line in the western world (so excluding Japan which is just nuts) uses double deck stock extensively..... with transverse seating.

So its not a hard rule for metro routes.

Pray where is this please?

 

[southern442]

Victoria- hemmed in by VERY expensive property.

Victoria wouldn't be that hard to rebuild, particularly on the western side, as the platforms go on for about 3 more carriage lengths in some places, this then leads to the emergency exit.

 

[HSTEd]

Pray where is this please?

RER Line A in Paris.

 

[Peter Sarf]

RER Line A in Paris.

Good point. That reminds me - I remember using the RER in Paris in 1986 and thinking thats what we need in London. Shall we call that more than 30 years before Crossrail will be running in London ?. I also remember in 1988 there being talk of an East - West line to relieve the already creaking Central line. Shall we call that 30 years before fruition. Back in 1988 I remember timing my journey to avoid the peak time closure of the Victoria line entrance at Victoria. Needless to say nothing has changed there.

I recall Crossrail is being built to a larger guage. How much usefully bigger is the guage at the Great Western end of things ?. How much work would be required to improve clearances at the Eastern end for double deck stock ?. Or will it be another missed opportunity.

 

[CC 72100]

RER Line A in Paris.

In other world, my commute!

Apparently every weekday more than 1 million people use the RER A.

Indeed longitudinal seating is nowhere to be seen on any of the Parisian suburban network (even the metro is mostly transverse) although it hasn't been ruled out for the future. At the moment, it suffices to run the trains under a signalling system which allows them to get very close. (See pic of two double-deck trains at Vincennes)

Of course, not every train on the RER A is double deck, and some branches are almost single deck only, as the long-suffering commuters of the Boissy St Leger and St Germain-en-Laye branches will testify

 

[CC 72100]

Good point. That reminds me - I remember using the RER in Paris in 1986 and thinking thats what we need in London. Shall we call that more than 30 years before Crossrail will be running in London ?.

Ironically enough I was flicking through a french railway magazine the other week, and they referred to Crossrail as 'le RER de Londres'

 

[Eagle]

I recall Crossrail is being built to a larger guage.

I'm not aware of that. Unless you mean larger than LU gauge, which is obvious.

In fact if the Moorgate crash taught us anything, it's that tube tunnels should be as small a gauge as possible to fit the stock that's running.

 

[Class172]

Do we have any idea what stock would be used on HS2 if built - surely that would be a good opportunity for Double Decked stock.

 

[edwin_m]

HS2 aren't planning to use double deck stock at present, although there's no reason why they shouldn't if that proves to be the best choice at the time.

 

[Loki]

Do we have any idea what stock would be used on HS2 if built - surely that would be a good opportunity for Double Decked stock.

Classic compatible - single deck.
Captive - double deck.

Also Crossrail's tunnels are UIC GB gauge designed to be used with DD stock in the future:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4675/dft-f0007346.pdf

 

[Bald Rick]

Good point. That reminds me - I remember using the RER in Paris in 1986 and thinking thats what we need in London. Shall we call that more than 30 years before Crossrail will be running in London ?. I also remember in 1988 there being talk of an East - West line to relieve the already creaking Central line. Shall we call that 30 years before fruition.

From 1986 you only had 2 years to wait till Thameslink, which was originally badged as a London Interconnexion which I think is what the early RER projects were called. Without the London obv.

Crossrail was proposed at least as far back as the 1930s, albeit it was called something else.

 

[Eagle]

Crossrail was proposed at least as far back as the 1930s, albeit it was called something else.

The Crossrail name came about sometime around 1990, which is when the earliest plans for the current Crossrail date from.