On some lines could double deckers be cheaper than platform extensions

[Nonsense]

Our limited loading gauges simply won't allow for true full-height double decker trains as in countries like the Netherlands etc.... the cost of upgrading the infrastructure could be potentially prohibitive, I think.

The British Loading gauge is defined by the smallest clearance, that minimum doesn't exist on all routes however, and there will be some routes where larger stock could operate with little or no modification.

I gather that the clearances on the GWML have been eroded in recent years, and that the route could be brought up to a more generous standard, but that the current policy of maintaining a standard loading gauge renders any attempt to increase these clearances pointless.

In my opinion, if you're procuring stock with a lifespan of 30-50 years for a route like the GWML, it should be built to maximise the potential of the route, and not be hindered by the constraints of the wider network.

 

[tbtc]

I don't really think that apart from the Buxton branch any other lines could take them without clearance works... Bit pointless if it would only benefit 25 miles of line IMHO

Ah, but this is the brave new McNulty-world, where every branch line will have its own (non-standard) stock. Tube trains on the Harrogate line, double deckers to Buxton, maybe steam on the Barton branch and push-pull Deltics doing the Windermere line...

 

[Bald Rick]

In Australia, the very nice and smart looking Sydney Cityrail M stock has 20.532 m (67 ft 4 in) long cars with a well. but width/height maybe a problem: Width 3.03 m (9 ft 11 in), Height 4.381 m (14 ft 4 in). I guess that spec may fit within some lines just about, if the width was reduced down to 2.80 m (9 ft 2 in)

Only slight problem is that it would pull the OLE down in this country, where minimum wire height is 4.100 metres (from memory). Perhaps we could have one-and-a-half deckers, with downstairs just for short people ?

 

[stanley T]

Just. The double-deck units on the Paris RER are almost exactly the same size, provided they were trimmed a little bit at platform level and at the cantrails. The lower deck would be in a well, skimming along just above the ground, with presumably access over the bogies (thus extending station calls by a couple of minutes). The first route I would go for, as a test, would be Waterloo-Southampton, since half of that is already cleared for W10. Start expanding from there, but stick with 3rd rail lines for the moment. I don't like the idea of running something that size under wires.

Well, you may not like the idea, but not only the existing but most of the planned routes cleared for W9 or W10 are under the wires - except for those which don't have heavy passenger traffic anyway, such as Felixstowe to Nuneaton. If they manage not to cook the containers electrically at present, should be able to avoid frying the pax on a double decker...

Southampton - Basingstoke is cleared for the route to the Midlands, but no intention to do Basingstoke -Waterloo and the number of bridges would be a nightmare. That of course is where the heavy commuter traffic is.

WCML is cleared for W10, but tilting is not on , with British platform heights - the idea of a tilting double decker Pendolino is deliciously scary, though.

Would work on the ECML, though, cleared for W9 I believe, and get round the inability to lengthen the platforms at King's Cross. After all, SNCF run duplex TGVs a lot faster than 125mph.

 

[northwichcat]

That is not a MU, it is a standalone loco hauling unpowered coaches with Push/pull capability.

I was saying it was a bit like a MU - meaning in terms of them having fixed carriage formations and driving cabs.

How would any of this be a better solution to the relatively straightforward solution of some platform lengthenings?

Explain. In some instances lengthening a platform would mean rebuilding a bridge over a road, river or canal or a compulsory land order purchase to buy land that doesn't belong to Network Rail. At my local station, Knutsford, the platforms are 6 carriages long - if you wanted 8 carriages long it would involve either rebuilding a bridge where the A50 crosses the line (which has 4 lanes of traffic) or rebuilding a bridge where the line goes over a town centre road. This could costs thousands in the planning stages before you even factor in the actual cost of doing the work.

Why would a failed engine on a pacer (or a power cut on an electric line) lead to it running down a hill out of control? That is what brakes and their associated failsafe systems are designed to deal with. If that were a realistic scenario pacers and electric trains would be a complete danger anywhere with gradients, they are not.

I was exaggerating a bit. However, I believe your over-selling failsafe systems, otherwise how do trains sometimes roll backwards?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have just had a cross-thread thought...maybe the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce will now be considering these self-same coaches for their ludicrous project, if they don't get their way over obtaining redundant LU stock

If the Harrogate line was given third rail then we'd really need a network of third rail track in the area to make it worth while. However, as it's Harrogate Chamber of Commerce who suggested it they don't have another line within their area to suggest to do next.

I suggested the Buxton line because out of the lines I know about it would seem the most sensible option for introducing DD stock. I think it would be practical to use on the Marple line but I don't believe the demand is there unless you reduce the frequency.

 

[Nonsense]

Ah, but this is the brave new McNulty-world, where every branch line will have its own (non-standard) stock. Tube trains on the Harrogate line, double deckers to Buxton, maybe steam on the Barton branch and push-pull Deltics doing the Windermere line...

Plenty of examples of isolated or non-standard rail operations in the UK. Look at Blackpool tram, Tyne Metro, Manchester's Metrolink, or the IoW.

The channel tunnel shuttle locos won't fit on the rest of the network but that's not bonkers because they don't need to venture out. Likewise, double deckers wouldn't venture beyond their home route because they won't need to.

There are economies of scale with standardised stock, but savings can be lost on over specified stock for a given corner of the network.

 

[yorksrob]

The Island line is an interesting case.

I'm pretty sure that in the days when it was run as a seperate franchise, It had one of the highest passenger subsidies per passenger km. Now some of this will be down to the seasonal nature of the lines traffic, but I would expect a similar off-the-beaten-track electrified line, such as the Sheppey Branch to still have lower operating costs.

 

[tbtc]

Plenty of examples of isolated or non-standard rail operations in the UK. Look at Blackpool tram, Tyne Metro, Manchester's Metrolink, or the IoW

True, but each of these have a decent number of units (rather than the single-figures number of trains needed to run the Harrogate line)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I suggested the Buxton line because out of the lines I know about it would seem the most sensible option for introducing DD stock. I think it would be practical to use on the Marple line but I don't believe the demand is there unless you reduce the frequency.

I did go to the trouble of naming the two tunnels that lie in between Chapel-en-le-Frith and Dove Holes that lie on the line to Buxton, in a previous posting, to query their clearances for your proposal for DD trains, but I notice that no-one has chosen to answer this point yet. Has anyone any views on this matter?

 

[Grantham]

To answer the original question, platform extensions would be far cheaper than double deck trains by a huge margin.

 

[northwichcat]

To answer the original question, platform extensions would be far cheaper than double deck trains by a huge margin.

Does that include instances where you may have to rebuild a rail bridge over a canal, river, road or other rail line in order to extend the platform?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I did go to the trouble of naming the two tunnels that lie in between Chapel-en-le-Frith and Dove Holes that lie on the line to Buxton, in a previous posting, to query their clearances for your proposal for DD trains, but I notice that no-one has chosen to answer this point yet. Has anyone any views on this matter?

I don't know the answer to that but cross Pennine tunnels seem to be a lot more generous with height clearance than LU:

170 Standedge tunnel
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/37/75/2377581_93073992.jpg

London Underground:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Why_London_Underground_is_nicknamed_The_Tube.jpg

I think the first picture also highlights that there shouldn't be any issues with OHE on North TPE, which Harrogate Chamber of Commerce said would be difficult on the Harrogate line due to tunnels.

If you look at the design of a DB double decker: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/2915480600_2e471f63da.jpg the top slopes inwards which will obviously reduce the number of line clearance issues.

 

[Grantham]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grantham
To answer the original question, platform extensions would be far cheaper than double deck trains by a huge margin.

Does that include instances where you may have to rebuild a rail bridge over a canal, river, road or other rail line in order to extend the platform?

Yes, certainly.

M

 

[swt_passenger]

Network Rail have just reiterated in the finalised version of the London and SE RUS (published yesterday) that the infrastructure changes for double deck trains (eg on the lines from Waterloo) are too expensive, and in any case the stock cannot provide the capacity increase needed.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the first picture also highlights that there shouldn't be any issues with OHE on North TPE, which Harrogate Chamber of Commerce said would be difficult on the Harrogate line due to tunnels.

One of the posts mentioned something about Bramhope tunnel being listed, although I would have thought this would have referred to the castellated portal, which would be unlikely to be changed significantly by OHLE anyway..

 

[Yew]

Only slight problem is that it would pull the OLE down in this country, where minimum wire height is 4.100 metres (from memory). Perhaps we could have one-and-a-half deckers, with downstairs just for short people ?

or have beds instead of seats downstairs, and you have to crawl to thewm?

 

[exile]

Only slight problem is that it would pull the OLE down in this country, where minimum wire height is 4.100 metres (from memory). Perhaps we could have one-and-a-half deckers, with downstairs just for short people ?

Ah, but that would be apartheight.

 

[Gareth]

Bit off-topic I know, but I've often wondered why we don't have double-decker trams on modern systems. They'd take up less space in urban areas, where space is limited. I've seen new 'retro' double-decker trams in Hong Kong, though these have no disable-friendly access. No reason why modern double-deckers couldn't though.

 

[northwichcat]

Bit off-topic I know, but I've often wondered why we don't have double-decker trams on modern systems. They'd take up less space in urban areas, where space is limited. I've seen new 'retro' double-decker trams in Hong Kong, though these have no disable-friendly access. No reason why modern double-deckers couldn't though.

Blackpool still has them but it is getting rid of most of them in favour of the European style trams we see in Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham.

I think the issue in Manchester would be to have double decker trams without needing a ramp for disabled passengers it would require the platforms to be rebuilt and then all the single decker trams would be at the wrong height. The existing trams couldn't be cascaded to Sheffield, Nottingham, Edinburgh or Croydon because they'd be the wrong height for those systems (again unless a ramp was available.)

 

[WatcherZero]

You could get away with having only the lower deck wheelchair accessible or even just an entry area with steps up and down to the main cabins. But I think the issue then comes round to low bridges, increased track wear due to weight and increased energy usage compared to a single deck tram when going at any decent speed. Trains can justify the increased energy demand.

 

[northwichcat]

You could get away with having only the lower deck wheelchair accessible or even just an entry area with steps up and down to the main cabins. But I think the issue then comes round to low bridges, increased track wear due to weight and increased energy usage compared to a single deck tram when going at any decent speed. Trains can justify the increased energy demand.

A double decker tram is usually the same sort of height as a double decker bus (look at Blackpool trams as an example.) As double decker buses can cross tram lines in Manchester without touching OHE there shouldn't be any issues with a normal design double decker trams hitting bridges.

However, if you design a special tram for Manchester that has two decks and the lower deck at platform height then it probably would be too tall for bridges due to the high platforms. If you have an intermediate entry level area then it's not as space effective.

There may also be a speed issue on the Altrincham and Bury lines. This is another example of where Metrolink is non-standard. For my limited experience of the German systems, if you're doing a journey of the equivalent length of Manchester-Altrincham over there you will get a tram-train or an ordinary train - if somewhere as far from the city centre as Altrincham has trams then it will have it's own tram system not be part of Manchester's system.

Double decker trams would work in the UK other than in Blackpool. However, Manchester's system would create too many difficulties in trying to implement, which could be overcome but at a price. In other cities the main obstacle is no-one is ordering double decker trams any more so you can't order a modified design of an existing one, unlike with single deckers which is probably why Blackpool is getting new single deckers opposed to double deckers. Incidentally the new Blackpool trams will have 4 short carriages.

 

[starrymarkb]

Blackpool still has them but it is getting rid of most of them in favour of the European style trams we see in Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham.

I think the issue in Manchester would be to have double decker trams without needing a ramp for disabled passengers it would require the platforms to be rebuilt and then all the single decker trams would be at the wrong height. The existing trams couldn't be cascaded to Sheffield, Nottingham, Edinburgh or Croydon because they'd be the wrong height for those systems (again unless a ramp was available.)

Blackpool is retrofitting low floor areas to Balloons and Milleniums.

One good reason for the European layouts is the rapid loading and unloading. Having 5 doors per side reduces dwell times

 

[Gareth]

But on a bus-style double-decker, the driver can administer fare collection, if you have a dual door operation where people enter at the driver's door and exit in the midsection.

Of course, there are pros and cons. I'm sure there'd be allsorts of problems introducing such vehicles on the Manchester Metrolink which is essentially a light rail system with street running in the central area, thus, has high platforms, as well as that underground part in Piccadilly.

But perhaps new build and on a more urban/traditional network. Liverpool's Merseytram proposals included mainly running on the wide central reservations that the old tram system ran on. New, low-floor double-deckers would've made the system very distinctive, though single-deckers were what was planned.

 

[WatcherZero]

Jcollins double deck trains in Japan and on the continent are normal platform height usually, theres an entry lounge with some wheelchair spaces and a handful of seats and then steps up and down on both sides to the second floor and lower floor, if youve ever used a double deck coach which there are a few in this country you should know the way it works, basically the lower sections are between the axles and the platform height door entry is above the axles. The OHLE in the city centre section is specifically higher to allow for buses and trucks to pass under, on the rest of the lines its normal national rail height (unlike Blackpool) but theres a few bridges where the pantograph uses minimum height clearance particularly on the South Manchester Line where the old structures wernt built with electrification in mind. Naturally its also higher at stations to seperate the platform users further.


Check Pantograph heights here:
City Centre

Former Railway lines

 

[northwichcat]

Jcollins double deck trains in Japan and on the continent are normal platform height usually, theres an entry lounge with some wheelchair spaces and a handful of seats and then steps up and down on both sides to the second floor and lower floor, if youve ever used a double deck coach which there are a few in this country you should know the way it works, basically the lower sections are between the axles and the platform height door entry is above the axles. The OHLE in the city centre section is specifically higher to allow for buses and trucks to pass under, on the rest of the lines its normal national rail height (unlike Blackpool) but theres a few bridges where the pantograph uses minimum height clearance particularly on the South Manchester Line where the old structures wernt built with electrification in mind. Naturally its also higher at stations to seperate the platform users further.

I'm confused as to what you are trying to get at here.

I've been on DB Regio and Renfe double decker trains but I thought we were talking about double decker trams.

 

[WatcherZero]

You were alleging that for a double deck tram you would need low platforms. I was suggesting something like this

 

[northwichcat]

You were alleging that for a double deck tram you would need low platforms. I was suggesting something like this

In my earlier post I said:

if you design a special tram for Manchester that has two decks and the lower deck at platform height then it probably would be too tall for bridges due to the high platforms. If you have an intermediate entry level area then it's not as space effective.

So I don't know what you're trying to prove by posting a lot of pictures of double decker trains with intermediate entry levels. I know what one of those is - I've been on trains like them as I've already said.

Another problem with intermediate entry level double decker trams, as I've already said, is that Manchester would be the only place that would have use for them and nowhere else could make use of any trams cascaded from Manchester.

On the other hand if you order a set for Croydon then Nottingham could order a slightly modified version of the same thing, as could Sheffield or Edinburgh.

Or do I assume from the train picture postings you've finally got fed up of trams on train lines around Manchester and want some proper trains back?

 

[WatcherZero]

Actually not that hard on the space efficency if you place the entrances in the articulation. Exactly the same is done on 70% low floor tram models. There are also street running bi-level tram-trains.

 

[Rational Plan]

Those sunken carriages are rather long. They look too long for a tram line. It would be simpler to order double units.

 

[Pete2210]

Going slightly off the thread regarding "tube" trains for Harrogate - they aren't tube trains, they are built to full mainline size albeit shorter and narrower, if you get my meaning, they were fully overhauled and refurbished just ten years ago, so much so that District line passengers thought they were new trains!

Having travelled on Double decker trains in both Germany and Switzerland I would imagine that even with the infrastructure changes they would be cheaper to run and build than HS2.

 

[northwichcat]

Going slightly off the thread regarding "tube" trains for Harrogate - they aren't tube trains, they are built to full mainline size albeit shorter and narrower, if you get my meaning, they were fully overhauled and refurbished just ten years ago, so much so that District line passengers thought they were new trains!

The car length is shorter but the width is actually wider. D78 stock is 2.85m wide. A 150 is 2.80m wide (standard width for a train with 3+2 seating) and a 156 is 2.73m wide (common width for a train with 3+2 seating.)