Double-Deck trains in UK

[Pieman]

Are there any lines that you could operate double decker trains on with minimal upgrades to the existing infrastructure?

 

[Train jaune]

Special trains for munchkins maybe could be doable. Ones for blokes with a fondness for pies, probably not.

 

[stuu]

Yes, HS1. Other than that, no

 

[norbitonflyer]

Depends how you design them, but within the UK loading gauge there is not enough width available for a usable lower deck. Modification of platforms to suit a practical double deck design would make them unsuitable for conventional stock.

 

[Pieman]

Sort of answer you would get from a frog eating hotpot muncher

 

[Peter C]

One cannot simply mention double-decker trains in the UK without mentioning Bulleid's 4DD units:

SR Class 4-DD - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Conceived by Oliver Bulleid for the Southern Railway's commuter line from London Charing Cross to Dartford, the two 4DD electric multiple units were the only double-decker trains to be used on the mainline railway network in Britain. Whilst commonly used in continental Europe and North America, the restrictive railway loading gauge in the United Kingdom prohibits normal double-decker trains with two fully separated decks.

These units prove that yes, you technically can get a double-decker train on a UK line without changing infrastructure, but it's a bit of a squeeze for passengers!

-Peter

EDIT: Although this picture seems to show it wasn't as cramped as I remember reading:

 

[DustyBin]

One cannot simply mention double-decker trains in the UK without mentioning Bulleid's 4DD units:

SR Class 4-DD - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These units prove that yes, you technically can get a double-decker train on a UK line without changing infrastructure, but it's a bit of a squeeze for passengers!

-Peter

EDIT: Although this picture seems to show it wasn't as cramped as I remember reading:
View attachment 84072

Amazing units! Although they weren’t true double deckers they’re the closest we got. They actually had a reasonable(ish) service life too for something so experimental.

 

[Peter C]

Amazing units! Although they weren’t true double deckers they’re the closest we got. They actually had a reasonable(ish) service life too for something so experimental.

Definitely - looking at this post https://twitter.com/bulleid_4dd/status/1068448695971184642/photo/1 it looks like the units were quite a clever design:


-Peter

 

[DustyBin]

Definitely - looking at this post https://twitter.com/bulleid_4dd/status/1068448695971184642/photo/1 it looks like the units were quite a clever design:
View attachment 84073

-Peter

They were certainly a clever design. They could swallow huge numbers of passengers but it was dwell times that let them down I believe. It’s not hard to imagine the issues when you look at the layout....

 

[Peter C]

They were certainly a clever design. They could swallow huge numbers of passengers but it was dwell times that let them down I believe. It’s not hard to imagine the issues when you look at the layout....

Exactly - being able to hold two people in the space you'd normally hold one through stacking was quite clever but station dwell times were a major let-down! Along with the Leader design, Bulleid definitely seemed to be onto something, but sadly these two ideas didn't work.

-Peter

 

[Deepgreen]

They were one-and-a-half deckers, more or less. I remember a trip on them near their end in summer 1971, and the lack of opening windows upstairs made them sweltering! Dwell times were obviously longer, as there were more people using the same number of doors, and it took more time for some people to extricate thermselves from upper level seats!

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

The beautiful Q1 worked better than nearly any other steam engine

 

[Peter C]

The beautiful Q1 worked better than nearly any other steam engine

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying all of Bulleid's designs were rubbish (I actually quite like his Pacifics and some of his other steam engine designs), but the Leader and the 4DD seemed to be experiments which failed.

-Peter

 

[Bald Rick]

Lower capacity than a Class 700 of the same length...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The problem with most double deck coaches is that they don't have quite the volume one would expect - they're only about 30% greater in seating capacity thanks to the sizeable vestibules which contain stairwells (and now lifts in some stock) and some carriage space being taken up by HVAC, air, electrical and toilet components which would normally be underfloor or roof mounted. The low ceiling height on the lower deck tends to restrict overhead storage space and the tumblehome/curvature on the upper deck also tends to limit overhead storage space, so many double deck sets have more space given over to luggage racks.

British stock would be particularly compromised by the higher platform height which would require steps to both the upper and lower decks, taking up more space, an issue not so serious for some types of continental stock built for lower platform heights.

And dwell times are frequently much slower, unsurprising really as we always knew more pax through fewer doors would be an issue, but adding in stairs for pax to navigate getting in and off stock is just going to really slow things down.

 

[Class 170101]

I wonder how much taller (and probably wider) on average we are as a population now than we were when these entered service in 1949?

 

[DustyBin]

Lower capacity than a Class 700 of the same length...

Perhaps, but in their day it wasn’t considered acceptable to have predominantly standing passengers crammed in like sardines. If it was, a 4-SUB with open saloons and most of the seating removed would have been a much simpler solution!

 

[Lloyds siding]

Blackpool Promenade?

 

[thenorthern]

With the 4DD trains they would be unsuitable today as they would not be able to comply with Disability requirements.

 

[DustyBin]

With the 4DD trains they would be unsuitable today as they would not be able to comply with Disability requirements.

True, although the same could be said of any 1940’s EMU....

 

[Turtle]

One cannot simply mention double-decker trains in the UK without mentioning Bulleid's 4DD units:

SR Class 4-DD - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These units prove that yes, you technically can get a double-decker train on a UK line without changing infrastructure, but it's a bit of a squeeze for passengers!

-Peter

EDIT: Although this picture seems to show it wasn't as cramped as I remember reading:
View attachment 84072

I used this train each evening for a few months prior to withdrawal. From a passenger's point of view the lower deck felt a bit claustrophobic due to the low ceiling for the upper deck seating - which I never ventured up to!
Also, as has been mentioned many times, stopping times at station would have been extended due to the necessarily slower disembarkation of passengers. I did not personally witness this as the train was always lightly loaded.

 

[Peter C]

I used this train each evening for a few months prior to withdrawal. From a passenger's point of view the lower deck felt a bit claustrophobic due to the low ceiling for the upper deck seating - which I never ventured up to!
Also, as has been mentioned many times, stopping times at station would have been extended due to the necessarily slower disembarkation of passengers. I did not personally witness this as the train was always lightly loaded.

A very interesting anecdote - thanks for sharing. Looking at photos I can see that it would have been really quite claustrophobic on the lower deck, as you say. Would have been nice to see one preserved (in a good condition)/the idea continued, but sadly that didn't happen.

-Peter

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I am glad to be of average height, anyone over 190 cm might bang their head in a modern double-decker as used in Germany and elsewhere
Apparently people in NL are particularly tall and getting taller, what can be done about this?

Where do the double-deckers have lifts?

 

[Bald Rick]

I am glad to be of average height, anyone over 190 cm might bang their head in a modern double-decker as used in Germany and elsewhere

Indeed we do.

 

[pdeaves]

Would have been nice to see one preserved

I believe two vehicles still exist, so that's a start.

 

[hexagon789]

A very interesting anecdote - thanks for sharing. Looking at photos I can see that it would have been really quite claustrophobic on the lower deck, as you say. Would have been nice to see one preserved (in a good condition)/the idea continued, but sadly that didn't happen.

-Peter

Two driving motor cars are preserved, one has been restored afaik

 

[Bald Rick]

I knew these existed, but never realised there were only ever 2 units.

It’s really spoilt something for me, as I often hoped that in the past some enterprising controller had put together a long formation of 9 units for a move from Slade Green to Chart Leacon or similar, forming an amply proportioned 36DD.

 

[Peter C]

I believe two vehicles still exist, so that's a start.

Two driving motor cars are preserved, one has been restored afaik

I ended up finding photos of those when looking into this yesterday - although the group which seemed to look after them hasn't been active on Twitter at least in over a year. I'll have a more in-depth research later.

-Peter

 

[SargeNpton]

I believe two vehicles still exist, so that's a start.

One of the Southern double-deck cars somehow has found its way to the Hunsbury Ironstone Railway site at Northampton.

 

[AM9]

The problem with most double deck coaches is that they don't have quite the volume one would expect - they're only about 30% greater in seating capacity thanks to the sizeable vestibules which contain stairwells (and now lifts in some stock) and some carriage space being taken up by HVAC, air, electrical and toilet components which would normally be underfloor or roof mounted. The low ceiling height on the lower deck tends to restrict overhead storage space and the tumblehome/curvature on the upper deck also tends to limit overhead storage space, so many double deck sets have more space given over to luggage racks.

British stock would be particularly compromised by the higher platform height which would require steps to both the upper and lower decks, taking up more space, an issue not so serious for some types of continental stock built for lower platform heights.

And dwell times are frequently much slower, unsurprising really as we always knew more pax through fewer doors would be an issue, but adding in stairs for pax to navigate getting in and off stock is just going to really slow things down.

If we disregard the flip-up seats on the 4DDs, a total of 44 per 4-car unit which I believe would block the stair access between lower and upper compartments, the whole experiment increased the seating capacity per unit length from 456 seats to 508 seats, - i.e. that's 11.4% extra a the cost of longer dwell times, poorer comfort, virtually no luggage space and very few standees.*
Add to that the restriction on their routes as a result of them being built to the absolute loading gauge (of the SE London Bridge to Dartford route), a mass build just couldn't be considered.
* They were rated for 150 standees per 4-car set, given that even then, passengers would not be expected to stand on the interconnecting stairs, the capacity increase was pitiful, whereas the 4SUBs could (and did) carry 6 standees in each of the 38 compartments. For comparison, a class 700/0 would seat around 447 standard class passengers plus over 700 standing together with plenty of storage space and 3 toilets, (1 PRM and 2 std) with no special gauge requirements. That would be slightly less than a 4DD but a lot safer and with shorter safe dwell times.