Continental Trains for GWR

[STINT47]

I've been wondering for some time if GWR could introduce trains built to continental loading gague on routes that were originally built to Brunels Broad gauge?

Looking at bridges out of Paddington there is extra space as they were built to accommodate two broad Hague tracks. Would it therefore be feasible to run wider trains that would allow a realistic 3 + 2 interior with Intercity comfort levels. The extra capacity could then be used to lower fares. It might even be possible to have two decks although I think width was more of a benefit from the broad gauge.

Other advantages of.ordering wider trains would be that it would allow the current bi modal stock to be transferred to Cross Country helping reduce diesels under the wires.

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

I've been wondering for some time if GWR could introduce trains built to continental loading gague on routes that were originally built to Brunels Broad gauge?

Looking at bridges out of Paddington there is extra space as they were built to accommodate two broad Hague tracks. Would it therefore be feasible to run wider trains that would allow a realistic 3 + 2 interior with Intercity comfort levels. The extra capacity could then be used to lower fares. It might even be possible to have two decks although I think width was more of a benefit from the broad gauge.

Other advantages of.ordering wider trains would be that it would allow the current bi modal stock to be transferred to Cross Country helping reduce diesels under the wires.

Almost certainly not as it would require all of the platforms rebuilding so that this wider stock doesn't strike them. This then creates issues as many stations will still be served by stock to the 'British' loading gauge which would then leave passengers with an unacceptable gap between train and platform.

 

[Energy]

Probably no, convincing a leasing company to order UK trains which can only be used on GWR wouldn't be easy without a long lease. Also just because Brunel built it to a larger gauge doesn't mean that everyone who maintained the route has stuck to that larger gauge...

GWR IETs are also pretty long, there doesn't seem to be any reports of too little space unless it gets shortened to a 5 car. The 720s at Greater Anglia (and other trains) have shown that you can put 3+2 in but it people probably won't use that middle seat.

 

[pdeaves]

The 'spare' space has, in many places, been used for other things now, too.

 

[hexagon789]

I've been wondering for some time if GWR could introduce trains built to continental loading gague on routes that were originally built to Brunels Broad gauge?

Looking at bridges out of Paddington there is extra space as they were built to accommodate two broad Hague tracks. Would it therefore be feasible to run wider trains that would allow a realistic 3 + 2 interior with Intercity comfort levels. The extra capacity could then be used to lower fares. It might even be possible to have two decks although I think width was more of a benefit from the broad gauge.

Other advantages of.ordering wider trains would be that it would allow the current bi modal stock to be transferred to Cross Country helping reduce diesels under the wires.

The loading gauge of the GWR "Brunel's" broad gauge was 13ft 6in in height and 9ft 8in in width for railway vehicles.

Perhaps someone can say how that compares to today's railway?

 

[zwk500]

The loading gauge of the GWR "Brunel's" broad gauge was 13ft 6in in height and 9ft 8in in width for railway vehicles.

Perhaps someone can say how that compares to today's railway?

UIC GA Loading gauge is 4.28m high by 3.15m wide (14'0.5" by 10'4" I think). The biggest problem though is the UK platform/Lower sector Gauge

 

[Irascible]

You can't even fit GWR steam locomotives along the GWR routes unmodified anymore, iirc - ballast is considerably deeper these days. A lot of the incompatibility with UIC is below solebar height I think, and in the last 130 years that space has been well used.

 

[Clansman]

Theoretically if one wanted European style seating capacity you could clean sweep the height obstructions on any required route and introduce bespoke UK platform gauged double deckers without the clearance issues.

 

[zwk500]

Theoretically if one wanted European style seating capacity you could clean sweep the height obstructions on any required route and introduce bespoke UK platform gauged double deckers without the clearance issues.

Although if you stuck to the UK platform width restriction there'd be so little capacity gain it's not really worth the bother, because the doors would be in such an awkward position.

 

[swt_passenger]

Theoretically if one wanted European style seating capacity you could clean sweep the height obstructions on any required route and introduce bespoke UK platform gauged double deckers without the clearance issues.

The lower deck (if kept within Uk platform and lower structure gauge) doesn’t gain enough extra capacity to justify doing it. It’s explained in that DfT paper that’s often been linked previously.

 

[D365]

sadly I think the gauging engineers, with their specialist software and reports, might put paid to this.

 

[EastisECML]

Almost certainly not as it would require all of the platforms rebuilding so that this wider stock doesn't strike them. This then creates issues as many stations will still be served by stock to the 'British' loading gauge which would then leave passengers with an unacceptable gap between train and platform.

Natural selection.

I vaguely remember First suggesting a high speed line towards the West as part of a franchise bid. It was shortly after Virgin's ECML HSL idea. That would be the only way to get taller and wider trains. Maybe that's something that will be looked at later on. Could see a new line from London to a station under Reading via Heathrow with branches towards Southampton and Didcot being considered.

 

[furnessvale]

The loading gauge of the GWR "Brunel's" broad gauge was 13ft 6in in height and 9ft 8in in width for railway vehicles.

Perhaps someone can say how that compares to today's railway?

Given that the GWML seems incapable of carrying 9' 6" containers on standard flats, which the WCML can do, I believe the GWR loading gauge, as opposed to track gauge, is not up to the job. Brunel's idea was to sling the vehicle body between the wheels for stability and comfort but those wheels were only 7ft apart.

 

[zwk500]

Given that the GWML seems incapable of carrying 9' 6" containers on standard flats, which the WCML can do, I believe the GWR loading gauge, as opposed to track gauge, is not up to the job. Brunel's idea was to sling the vehicle body between the wheels for stability and comfort but those wheels were only 7ft apart.

Container clearance is more often about the curve of the roof/arch than it is the absolute max height. I think W10 is either the same or only a few inches taller than W6 at the centreline. It's the squareness of the corners that is the problem.

 

[swt_passenger]

Container clearance is more often about the curve of the roof/arch than it is the absolute max height. I think W10 is either the same or only a few inches taller than W6 at the centreline. It's the squareness of the corners that is the problem.

Yes, the W10 and W12 envelopes are basically the same height at centreline as W6, and the lower size W7, W8 and W9 are all well within W6 at centreline. It’s why posts often explain that W10 or W12 gauge clearance on its own doesn’t automatically improve clearances for OHLE.

 

[Irascible]

Given that the GWML seems incapable of carrying 9' 6" containers on standard flats, which the WCML can do, I believe the GWR loading gauge, as opposed to track gauge, is not up to the job. Brunel's idea was to sling the vehicle body between the wheels for stability and comfort but those wheels were only 7ft apart.

See previous quote about ballast depth - BG track was an entirely different system & now I'm curious just how much rail height has raised from 1892.

Putting the body between the wheels may have been the initial idea but it didn't last long. Just look how much spare width is visible on the convertible carriages & how huge some of the pure BG stock got ( 10fr wide with running boards, some of the later stuff ). None of it is noticeably tall though.

 

[Snow1964]

See previous quote about ballast depth - BG track was an entirely different system & now I'm curious just how much rail height has raised from 1892.

Putting the body between the wheels may have been the initial idea but it didn't last long. Just look how much spare width is visible on the convertible carriages & how huge some of the pure BG stock got ( 10fr wide with running boards, some of the later stuff ). None of it is noticeably tall though.

Brunel used a different shaped rail, it was much lower and arch shaped and only about 3 inches high.

Next time I take dog for long walk and remember to take a steel tape measure I can check exact height, I know of at least 4 pieces that used to carry signs and were clearly reused old rail planted like signposts between Corsham and Box that are by the chainlink fencing.

I think modern 60kg/m flat bottom rails are about twice as tall as the arch shape rail, bullhead rail was lower but was mounted on taller chairs unlike modern rail which just has thin pad against sleeper.

 

[Irascible]

Brunel used a different shaped rail, it was much lower and arch shaped and only about 3 inches high.

Next time I take dog for long walk and remember to take a steel tape measure I can check exact height, I know of at least 4 pieces that used to carry signs and were clearly reused old rail planted like signposts between Corsham and Box that are by the chainlink fencing.

I think modern 60kg/m flat bottom rails are about twice as tall as the arch shape rail, bullhead rail was lower but was mounted on taller chairs unlike modern rail which just has thin pad against sleeper.

Yeah, ther'es some bridge raill down here used for fences still. What I meant was how far above the base of the trackbed the rail top is now - it's a fair bit higher than the 60s, let alone the 1890s. Baulk track rode on vertical piles, so it's going to be fairly close to the trackbed base.

 

[MattRat]

Theoretically if one wanted European style seating capacity you could clean sweep the height obstructions on any required route and introduce bespoke UK platform gauged double deckers without the clearance issues.

Wasn't that what the Southern Railway tried to do in the 1930s? And since it isn't standard practice today, something obviously went wrong.

 

[zwk500]

Wasn't that what the Southern Railway tried to do in the 1930s? And since it isn't standard practice today, something obviously went wrong.

The 4DD stock (as it must inevitably be mentioned in any discussion about continental gauge and double decking) was not true Double deck but instead a staggered arrangement, and was still limited in overall height by the UK loading gauge.

 

[D6130]

Wasn't that what the Southern Railway tried to do in the 1930s? And since it isn't standard practice today, something obviously went wrong.

Two four car units, which always ran together, were introduced in 1948....but they weren't true double-deckers - more like one-and-a-half deckers. The upstairs compartments were staggered above and between the downstairs ones and only accessible through the latter. They were a nightmare to load and unload and, in Summer, the upstairs compartments - with their non-opening windows curving into the roof - were like a cross between a greenhouse and a sauna. No wonder they were withdrawn in the early 1970s.

 

[MattRat]

The 4DD stock (as it must inevitably be mentioned in any discussion about continental gauge and double decking) was not true Double deck but instead a staggered arrangement, and was still limited in overall height by the UK loading gauge.

Two four car units, which always ran together, were introduced in 1948....but they weren't true double-deckers - more like one-and-a-half deckers. The upstairs compartments were staggered above and between the downstairs ones and only accessible through the latter. They were a nightmare to load and unload and, in Summer, the upstairs compartments - with their non-opening windows curving into the roof - were like a cross between a greenhouse and a sauna. No wonder they were withdrawn in the early 1970s.

Well the solutions to those problems would be a little extra height and air con, the latter being pretty much standard on all modern trains, and the former might be possible according to the OP.

Not true continental of course, but an interesting possibility.

 

[zwk500]

Well the solutions to those problems would be a little extra height and air con, the latter being pretty much standard on all modern trains, and the former might be possible according to the OP.

Not true continental of course, but an interesting possibility.

It was cramped for the time, so there's no way todays taller passengers would tolerate such a design. Adding 'a little extra height' means rebuilding every bridge, tunnel, Signal Gantry and OLE structure along the route to accept the new trains which don't even give any extra capacity unless you also rebuild every single platform. Unfortunately, the degree to which platforms must be rebuilt would preclude normal gauge trains calling at them as the stepping distance would be too great for current standards.

 

[CBlue]

Well the solutions to those problems would be a little extra height and air con, the latter being pretty much standard on all modern trains, and the former might be possible according to the OP.

Not true continental of course, but an interesting possibility.

Air conditioning and a "few extra inches" (where are you getting them from?) won't solve the issues around dwell times and the lack of capacity thanks to staircases taking up room. They only work on the content thanks to the far larger loading gauge.

 

[Irascible]

Well the solutions to those problems would be a little extra height and air con, the latter being pretty much standard on all modern trains, and the former might be possible according to the OP.

Not true continental of course, but an interesting possibility.

There's no extra height on the GW anymore - the track took it. There's a little extra width in places, but that's not going to do much for an extra deck...