Could there be 16 coach services into London in the future?

[DasLunatic]

As many of our trains get evermore crowded, do you think we will end up seeing fifteen/sixteen-coach units into the capital? If so, what line would get these services first? How much would the platform extensions cost?

 

[Ironside]

As many of our trains get evermore crowded, do you think we will end up seeing fifteen/sixteen-coach units into the capital? If so, what line would get these services first? How much would the platform extensions cost?

I think this is unlikely as there will be too many stations that won't be able to take trains of that length. There may be stations that can take trains of this length but they would have to stop at only the stations that can take them which may upset the capsasity of the line making them pointless.

 

[ComUtoR]

Wouldn't the current limit index be problematic.

 

[Nym]

Wouldn't the current limit index be problematic.

Electrically?

On AC, not really IMO.

 

[onlinespotting]

Which stations can accommodate 15/16 cars?

 

[TheNewNo2]

Of all the termini, Fenchurch Street would probably be easiest to extend. All the others, I don't see it as doable, not without massive closures. Charing Cross is impossible, Cannon Street probably also, Victoria potentially doable but rather hard. King's Cross impossible, Waterloo probably impossible, Liverpool Street impossible, St Pancras completely irrelevant, Paddington isn't utilised to 12 car currently.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Waterloo Plats 20-24 probably could if they were 20m coaches.

 

[MarkRedon]

Could there be 16 coach services into London in the future?

Yes, of course there could be – but only on new-build high-speed lines. This is one more argument in favour of HS2, where the trains will be 400 m long. It would of course be very difficult and very expensive to achieve on existing conventional lines, and is almost certainly not cost-justifiable. On newly-built high-speed lines, very long trains can sometimes make sense. Much of the TGV network in France can accommodate 20-car trains.

 

[telstarbox]

Joining terminating routes together as per Thameslink, Crossrail and Crossrail 2 is an easier way to improve capacity as it removes the reversing moves at the main termini which currently limit capacity.

This would point towards a NW-SE alignment for Crossrail 3 eg joining the Euston and London Bridge lines.

 

[Haydn1971]

With the through gangway designs that are coming through, although not simple, there could be wider use of selective door operation using say 12 car units on 10 car platforms across a whole route not unlike what's done at Greenwich on the DLR currently. There would be huge amounts of work required on signals and track, plus some deep thought on terminal stations where lengthened trains would leave more than just one carriage to walk through. I'd expect the easiest way to add capacity though is via methods being used on Thameslink and Crossrail to simplify routes, remove crossing conflicts and essentially increase trains per hour towards the current 24 per hour maximum.

 

[Hophead]

This has been considered for the main line out of Waterloo. Obviously, the International platforms would be required (at 400-odd metres, they ought to be able to just about take 20x20m (or 17x23m) coaches.

Grade separation would be required to get the ex-international lines back into the right place after departure.

I understand that the trains would run as far as somewhere like Basingstoke or Winchester before splitting, thereby limiting the numbers of platforms that would need extending further out.

Where did I read all this (or read reference to it)? Probably in one of the Route Utilisation Studies from 5 years or so back. I don't remember what the study concluded. To be honest, it sounds like one of those ideas that sounds all very well until you start to delve into the practicalities (current draw? time to clear junctions? what if the train needs to be diverted en-route?).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Wouldn't the current limit index be problematic.

Electrically?

On AC, not really IMO.

Wouldn't 16 car trains basically mean that lines would have to be converted to AC?

 

[AM9]

Hasn't this been discussed before. The conclusion ISTR was that the net gain from longer trains can be very little or even negative as signal/block sections need to be longer, increasing train spacing, (i.e. reducing their frequency), also longer trains don't mean that passengers spread themselves out along them, as the walk at either end of the journey is longer.
Its one thing seeing 16x25m coaches on Mumbai commuter trains where passengers have to spread out otherwise they just can't get on (even on the roof). As happens in the UK at present, passengers all pack into the coaches nearest the entrance/exits of their stations, leaving the country end with empty seats. On many outer suburban and inter-city routes, these seats can remain empty for longer than the 30 minutes to the first peak-hour stop.
Extending the trains from their current 12 to 16 cars would just make the front seats even more sparsely used despite through gangways.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wouldn't 16 car trains basically mean that lines would have to be converted to AC?

Well given the upheavil of re-signalling, extending platforms, changing station layouts and providing additional rolling stock, the cost of doing the correct thing and converting to ac would be peanuts especially when the energy savings and train performance gains are factored in.

 

[swt_passenger]

Wouldn't 16 car trains basically mean that lines would have to be converted to AC?

16 car trains have been assessed in various Wessex area docs, the older route utilisation study, the new route study, the London and SE RUS, and also the Dft Waterloo International report.

I don't recall any of the analyses suggesting it couldn't be done because of power limitations. Why wouldn't they be able to strengthen the DC supplies anyway? They are still doing this today over most of the former Southern region.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Waterloo Plats 20-24 probably could if they were 20m coaches.

Not necessarily though, once they have been shortened at both ends as part of the alterations that are just about to start...

 

[Stats]

Lengthening to 14 or 16 cars has been mooted in the recent Sussex Route Study as a possibility for selected limited stop services on the Brighton Main Line. It is suggested that this may be needed by the 2040s. It would require major infrastructure works, but according to Network Rail, would still offer a better case than a new lines solution and cannot be ruled out.

The Route Study says this option needs to remain on the table until GRIP3 feasibility is reached on the BML options for CP6/CP7, as it may be needed earlier if any of the near term options are deemed unaffordable.

 

[jopsuk]

with a carriage being (on the modern network) anywhere from 20m to 26m, it makes far more sense to talk length in metres not carriages. After all, the Crossrail stock was supposedly "10 car" until Bombardier's bid for a 9x22m formation succeeded in meeting the brief for a 200m train.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

16 car trains have been assessed in various Wessex area docs, the older route utilisation study, the new route study, the London and SE RUS, and also the Dft Waterloo International report.

I don't recall any of the analyses suggesting it couldn't be done because of power limitations. Why wouldn't they be able to strengthen the DC supplies anyway? They are still doing this today over most of the former Southern region.

How close together would substations have to be to allow a 15 car 444 or a 16 car 450? (I know that it can't be done due to the limits of the control software/electronics but if that limitation didn't exist, and they weren't limited in the amount of power that they could draw)?

 

[AM9]

How close together would substations have to be to allow a 15 car 444 or a 16 car 450? (I know that it can't be done due to the limits of the control software/electronics but if that limitation didn't exist, and they weren't limited in the amount of power that they could draw)?

On paper, it would require 33% more feed points if the current 40% limiting of power was maintained. Converting to a proper ac supply would improve acceleration of existing services giving a slight increase in line capacity. Such an increase would cost a lot less than all the infrastructure and operational costs of longer trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

with a carriage being (on the modern network) anywhere from 20m to 26m, it makes far more sense to talk length in metres not carriages. After all, the Crossrail stock was supposedly "10 car" until Bombardier's bid for a 9x22m formation succeeded in meeting the brief for a 200m train.

Either way, a 25-33% increase in train length needs a very expensive infrastructure upgrade for a dubious real increase in capacity.

 

[Tio Terry]

Waterloo Plats 20-24 probably could if they were 20m coaches.

Those platforms are about to be reduced at both ends to 12 car length to allow the throat to be totally relayed so that trains out of and into those platforms don't have to be routed via the Windsors only.

 

[jopsuk]

Those platforms are about to be reduced at both ends to 12 car length to allow the throat to be totally relayed so that trains out of and into those platforms don't have to be routed via the Windsors only.

Or rather, the throat is being remodelled so that platforms 1-4 can be extended to 10 car and everything else can be moved up. The former international platforms will remain Windsor-side only but the SWML will take over the lower numbered Windsor side platforms

 

[QueensCurve]

Of all the termini, Fenchurch Street would probably be easiest to extend. All the others, I don't see it as doable, not without massive closures. Charing Cross is impossible, Cannon Street probably also, Victoria potentially doable but rather hard. King's Cross impossible, Waterloo probably impossible, Liverpool Street impossible, St Pancras completely irrelevant, Paddington isn't utilised to 12 car currently.

Cannon St and Charing cross could perhaps be extended across the river as in the case of Blackfriars?

 

[swt_passenger]

How close together would substations have to be to allow a 15 car 444 or a 16 car 450? (I know that it can't be done due to the limits of the control software/electronics but if that limitation didn't exist, and they weren't limited in the amount of power that they could draw)?

Pro rata increase in capacity for each individual train. No direct need to put new substations in at different distances apart. No-one has been suggesting EVERY train be lengthened to 16 carriages. So if it was say 20% of mainline services, it would be only single figures of percentage extra capacity.

The sort of increase they need for 10 car to Reading, compared to 8 car, is theoretically about 25%, and that is being done as normal business by upgrading substations, not building new ones.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or rather, the throat is being remodelled so that platforms 1-4 can be extended to 10 car and everything else can be moved up. The former international platforms will remain Windsor-side only but the SWML will take over the lower numbered Windsor side platforms

The international side 'throat' is being moved towards the north, hence the current planning applications to rebuild the bridges over Leake St. The buffers are also being moved 50m or so south to provide for a new, much bigger Windsor side concourse. Enough change to rule out 320m trains.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The sort of increase they need for 10 car to Reading, compared to 8 car, is theoretically about 25%, and that is being done as normal business by upgrading substations, not building new ones.

It's 25% because the stock needs about 15%, the rest is wasted on heating up the third rail.

There are upgrades to some of the new power stations which were installed during the slam-door withdrawl enabling works - as usual, under specified equipment, some is recovered and used elsewhere though, so not a total dead loss, but still...

The decision not to convert to AC at the same time as replacing the slam-door stock is pretty irritating though.

The only trains that should be using DC have Tri-Ang stamped in the bottom of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it be feasible for selected services to become double-deck, perhaps? A start might be some widenings of routes that mostly run on HS1, or perhaps the GWML as it's already got wide track spacings?

 

[swt_passenger]

Not really. NR kick it into the long grass fairly regularly, it's proven NOT to be the solution in a number of strategy documents, most of which have been discussed in existing threads...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Would it be feasible for selected services to become double-deck, perhaps? A start might be some widenings of routes that mostly run on HS1, or perhaps the GWML as it's already got wide track spacings?

You gain capacity on the trains (though not as much as you might think) and you lose all of that additional capacity by increasing dwell times. It really needs longer trains and trains with more doors for some services.

The industry is very interested to see how the CrossRail fleet, with their three doors per carriage design, does.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The industry is very interested to see how the CrossRail fleet, with their three doors per carriage design, does.

It could look to Germany where that layout (or even 4 doors in a 26m coach) has been standard for S-Bahn for years. Or indeed the Metropolitan Line!

 

[Radedamer]

with a carriage being (on the modern network) anywhere from 20m to 26m, it makes far more sense to talk length in metres not carriages. After all, the Crossrail stock was supposedly "10 car" until Bombardier's bid for a 9x22m formation succeeded in meeting the brief for a 200m train.

Overall length would be more relevant in considering whether a train will fit into a platform, but as each carriage has doors at each end and probably at least one toilet, the total number of seats on two trains of equal length will surely be greater for a train of fewer but longer carriages? OTOH longer carriages, I'm given to understand, might not fit in some tight radius curves where structures are close to the line.

 

[Mikey C]

I can't see the 16th carriage being well used, it would take an eternity to get off the platform!

Maybe it would only work at stations where there is a separate access from the back of the train, like at Paddington or the former overbridge at London Bridge platforms 1-6?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another option is, I suppose, to increase capacity by reducing the number of stopping patterns and thus allowing more trains to run. Wouldn't be popular with everyone, though.