Double-Deck trains in UK

[quantinghome]

Double deck trains on cross-channel services would also need a substantial increase in security and border control capacity at the stations, particularly if low-cost operators give it a go (it sounds like a doubled-up TGV-M in a lost cost configuration would have about 1500 seats - great if it can be made to work).

Would the TGV-M be able to operate in pairs through the tunnel or would it need to be a single 400m train? If the latter, how would that work with the power cars?

 

[43096]

The tunnel has emergency exits every 375m, so trains have to have doors this far apart.

This “fact” keeps cropping up, but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. A full length 373 set is around 343m for the passenger vehicles (excluding power cars) and a NoL set is around 275m for the passenger vehicles. Both have been used through the tunnel in passenger service.

 

[RT4038]

Double deck trains on cross-channel services would also need a substantial increase in security and border control capacity at the stations, particularly if low-cost operators give it a go (it sounds like a doubled-up TGV-M in a lost cost configuration would have about 1500 seats - great if it can be made to work).

In these cramped double deckers, where is all the luggage going to go, bearing in mind that virtually everyone on these services travels with at least some item of luggage, and many people carrying plenty?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In these cramped double deckers, where is all the luggage going to go, bearing in mind that virtually everyone on these services travels with at least some item of luggage, and many people carrying plenty?

Lumo have proven that low cost operations can still sell tickets with very stringent luggage restrictions, so the answer to that might be "not at all". And because of the security checks it would be feasible to actually enforce it, unlike domestic trains.

 

[MotCO]

This “fact” keeps cropping up, but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. A full length 373 set is around 343m for the passenger vehicles (excluding power cars) and a NoL set is around 275m for the passenger vehicles. Both have been used through the tunnel in passenger service.

All I can say is that this was told to me by a guide who was taking me through the service tunnel on a visit for emergency response training.

 

[zwk500]

The tunnel has emergency exits every 375m, so trains have to have doors this far apart.

I've looked through the IGC documentation quite closely, and cannot see this requirement in current documents. Happy to be corrected!

 

[martin2345uk]

Would the TGV-M be able to operate in pairs through the tunnel or would it need to be a single 400m train? If the latter, how would that work with the power cars?

Eurostar are considering this as an option so must be reasonably confident it can work in practice.

 

[HSTEd]

In these cramped double deckers, where is all the luggage going to go, bearing in mind that virtually everyone on these services travels with at least some item of luggage, and many people carrying plenty?

A TGV-M will not be significantly more cramped than a Class 373.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2025 ==

Would the TGV-M be able to operate in pairs through the tunnel or would it need to be a single 400m train? If the latter, how would that work with the power cars?

HS1 and LGV NOrd are pretty low performance high speed railways by modern standards, they only require 300km/h operation.
A pair of TGV-M power cars, especially if the adjacent trailer bogies were powered as on the Class 373, would probably be able to move a 400m TGV-M trailer formation at the accelerations and speeds required. A double deck TGV trailer isn't much heavier than a single deck one.

But I think the TGV-M proposal for Eurostar is for 200m sets, although that is obviously not guaranteed as the order has not actually been placed yet.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Assuming they go for 200m sets

I Know that 200m sets are allowed in the tunnel given the ICE proposal a few years ago and relaxing of rules

But are 2 200m units coupled together allowed as there may be complexity due to the fact that you can't walk between them. Like 2 TGV Ms for example

 

[zwk500]

Assuming they go for 200m sets

I Know that 200m sets are allowed in the tunnel given the ICE proposal a few years ago and relaxing of rules

But are 2 200m units coupled together allowed as there may be complexity due to the fact that you can't walk between them. Like 2 TGV Ms for example

There is no specific prohibition against 2x200m, indeed, ICE's proposals were for 2x200m IIRC.

As I mentioned, any stock travelling through the tunnel has to meet either a 30-minute fire safety standard (it must be safe to drive for 30 minutes after the fire started) or demonstrate its safety plan to evacuate to the surface is effective and safe for the channel tunnels operations.

 

[MotCO]

Assuming they go for 200m sets

I Know that 200m sets are allowed in the tunnel given the ICE proposal a few years ago and relaxing of rules

But are 2 200m units coupled together allowed as there may be complexity due to the fact that you can't walk between them. Like 2 TGV Ms for example

I think that as long as there are exit doors on the combined train which are 375 metres apart (to match the distance between escape doors in the tunnel), it should be ok.

 

[Dennyboy]

I think that as long as there are exit doors on the combined train which are 375 metres apart (to match the distance between escape doors in the tunnel), it should be ok.

Yes, on 'home soil' bi-level Rolling Stock would be 'captive to set routes' and couldn't later easily be cascaded to other UK operators. But as some other nations share our track guage (ie 4.85m), inc' the Channel Tunnel, exporting the trains needn't involve costly shipping.

 

[zwk500]

I think that as long as there are exit doors on the combined train which are 375 metres apart (to match the distance between escape doors in the tunnel), it should be ok.

Is there a reference for this requirement in current documents from the IGC?

 

[MotCO]

Is there a reference for this requirement in current documents from the IGC?

I've not seen any IGC documents, but I was told that by a guide whilst in the service tunnel during an emergency response training session about 10 years ago.

 

[Bald Rick]

But as some other nations share our track guage (ie 4.85m)

That’s somewhat wide of the mark!

 

[Falcon1200]

That’s somewhat wide of the mark!

15.9 foot gauge - Not even Brunel proposed that!

 

[MatthewHutton]

In these cramped double deckers, where is all the luggage going to go, bearing in mind that virtually everyone on these services travels with at least some item of luggage, and many people carrying plenty?

Presumably they are only going to be used on HS1 and the channel tunnel where the loading gauge is continental allowing for normal continental double decker services?

 

[MarkyT]

15.9 foot gauge - Not even Brunel proposed that!

Even exceeds the unbuilt German Nazi era Breitspurbahn proposals for 3m gauge (9ft 10 1/8in) railways, although initially they also considered 4m gauge.

 

[zwk500]

I've not seen any IGC documents, but I was told that by a guide whilst in the service tunnel during an emergency response training session about 10 years ago.

It's often quoted, and may well have been in place once, but the current documents from the IGC are publicly available and so far as I can see there is no reference to a minimum safe length: https://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/-Regulations-and-guidance-.html?lang=en

My reading of the IGC documents is that so long as the train satisfies the 30-minute fire safety time to evacuate itself to the surface and evacuate there, the length of the train between the cross passages is not relevant. I am not a regulatory expert though so I do not claim to be authoritative and am happy to be corrected.

 

[Dennyboy]

Double deck trains have been discussed on this forum several times, but I can't see any answers to my question, which is simply to ask whether any routes have actually been costed for providing double deck trains?

People on this forum (unlike some journalists and many members of the public) will know that this would be no easy task as tunnels are too small, platforms too high, tracks too close together etc. However, focusing on just one route at a time (as we do when considering electrification), I wonder if any routes (eg. HS1, WCML, MML, ECML, sections of XC, or "just" some suburban routes), have been approximately costed for providing double deck trains? It would be interesting to know how such costs might compare per mile, against the cost of electrification (for example).

As a starter I would guess that London to Bristol might be cheaper due to the tracks having already been set apart when providing for HSTs in the 1970s, and some routes would cost less due to having fewer tunnels. So have actual costs per route or per route mile already been discussed?

Cascading retired Double-Deck stock/fleet to other UK operators would be restrictive, given how only a selection of routes are sufficiently gauge-cleared. But exporting the wagons needn't pose the same challenge as UK track-gauge is common to some mainland operations. Channel Tunnel headroom (ie from track to ceiling) of almost 19-feet would accomodate Stock Transfers (inc' most DD) thus eliminating shipping.

 

[Dennyboy]

AIUI the tunnels would in theory be clear for UIC Gauge (not sure if UIC-GA or UIC-GB/GB+) but the platform profile is not (the platform is the standard UK offset from the rail, but higher (1,100mm) than the normal UK platform height, (915mm) so in theory the absolute height would be sufficient but the lower deck would need to be rather narrow.

I am welcome to be corrected on any of those points, as I may well be wrong on some or all of it!

'Good point re' width restrictions of lower deck ie curved station platforms require a clearance thus narrowing seating configurations by 1-abreast. I've imagined an upstairs seating configuration of 3-abreast with sunken side passageways. Undecided would this work with arched train roofs, as dictated by unelectrified Diesel-only routes, Full Electritrification (from our present 38%) would definitely tolerate flatter roofed stock. Additionally, train undersides can't be lower than standard axle height owing to the structure of dome iron-bridges. These tendvto comprise longitudinal trusses between the rails.

 

[swt_passenger]

Full Electritrification (from our present 38%) would definitely tolerate flatter roofed stock.

It doesn’t automatically follow that electrification allows larger vehicle bodies. If any particular bridge has to be fully rebuilt, it might well provide better clearance in all dimensions, but only if the local road levels allow for the carriageway height to be lifted. There have been cases where it couldn’t be done. (Goblin somewhere?)

But any bridge or tunnel that can have wiring added without rebuilding, (and there are many that can), will not improve rolling stock gauge at all.

Same applies to W12 freight gauge projects. On their own, they do not automatically provide any greater height clearance at the centre line of rolling stock, it’s all about the corners.

 

[Dennyboy]

Double deck trains have been discussed on this forum several times, but I can't see any answers to my question, which is simply to ask whether any routes have actually been costed for providing double deck trains?

People on this forum (unlike some journalists and many members of the public) will know that this would be no easy task as tunnels are too small, platforms too high, tracks too close together etc. However, focusing on just one route at a time (as we do when considering electrification), I wonder if any routes (eg. HS1, WCML, MML, ECML, sections of XC, or "just" some suburban routes), have been approximately costed for providing double deck trains? It would be interesting to know how such costs might compare per mile, against the cost of electrification (for example).

As a starter I would guess that London to Bristol might be cheaper due to the tracks having already been set apart when providing for HSTs in the 1970s, and some routes would cost less due to having fewer tunnels. So have actual costs per route or per route mile already been discussed?

I think one such select route considered for operation of Bi-Level passenger trains is the Trans-Pennine (eg Nuneaton-Felixstowe) corridor. This route is alegedly expected, at least, to carry Double-Stack container freight. Definite mention was made of retrialling DD railcars can't recall exactly what routes were named. Less easily cascaded within the UK, should Bi-Level fleet not perform as expected, all DD routes would require be be directly accessible to/from the Channel Tunnel (almost 19' loading gauge ie track-ceiling) in order to export/import said Rolling Stock.

 

[Dennyboy]

I think the DfT double-decker trains report of 2007 included an attempt to cost the infrastructure changes needed on a few routes around London, eg the Brighton Line. It quickly concluded they were off the scale. They also did a comparison with other options and decided that in the areas of the former SR where 12 x 20m trains were the norm, an equivalent capacity increase would be achieved by running 16 car trains.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2007-12-12/debates/0712135000010/RollingStockProcurement

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2012-06-28/debates/12062867000026/Double-DeckerTrains

Double-deckers have all sorts of passenger disadvantages. It takes longer to get on and off, it's harder to travel with luggage, it's restrictive for anyone who struggles with stairs, it's harder to move between coaches looking for seats or the toilet ...

Extra capacity is the only benefit and I'm not sure I'd trade that for everything else.

Double-deckers have all sorts of passenger disadvantages. It takes longer to get on and off, it's harder to travel with luggage, it's restrictive for anyone who struggles with stairs, it's harder to move between coaches looking for seats or the toilet ...

Extra capacity is the only benefit and I'm not sure I'd trade that for everything else.

Without a significant increase in overall height necessarily, the gauge clearance of remaining Diesel Only routes (presently 62% UK-wide) will still be a 'game changer' for a condensed Interdeck configuration. Were a lower, partially sunken saloon to seat 2+1 abreast and the upper 3-abreast with side aisles then a 3rd pair of doors would more than compensate for a 30% increase in Station Dwell Times (ie by 50%). My only misgivings on this concept configuration on present UK infrastructure is could the arched/contoured roofs accommodate the standing headroom that side aisles require. Unsuccessful trialling of said DD-stock need only be a 'Eurostar route' away from cascading it overseas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2025 ==

I think the DfT double-decker trains report of 2007 included an attempt to cost the infrastructure changes needed on a few routes around London, eg the Brighton Line. It quickly concluded they were off the scale. They also did a comparison with other options and decided that in the areas of the former SR where 12 x 20m trains were the norm, an equivalent capacity increase would be achieved by running 16 car trains.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2007-12-12/debates/0712135000010/RollingStockProcurement

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2012-06-28/debates/12062867000026/Double-DeckerTrains

I'd dare to differ from one argument, namely that for r/stock being captive to select routes would hinder their usability by other operators. Really, provided such r/stock isn't too high or wide for the Channel Tunnel then only routes connecting Double-Deck territory to this corridor need offer the relevant Structure Gauge. DD stock ciuld be exported with or without adaptation for conflicting track gauges.

 

[zwk500]

This route is alegedly expected, at least, to carry Double-Stack container freight.

Where is this information from? Even with well cars, W12 would not allow double stack containers.

 

[Dennyboy]

Where is this information from? Even with well cars, W12 would not allow double stack containers.

Apologies for any oversight! However clear I was/am with Bi-Level Passenger Stock being Eurostar compliant, I hadn't factored in the deck-height of container fleet and remaining headroom above that.

 

[Dennyboy]

The DfT report (attached earlier) reckoned about only a 25% max seating gain in our normal loading gauge.

'Not too sure would the (mandatory) arched/contoured roofs allow an upper 3-abreast seating config' with side-aisles. But even a downstairs (width-reduced to clear curved stn p'forms) 2+1 layout, the moderate capacity gains of below 30% would be more than compensated for via a +50% door provision ie centre of each side. 'Definitely get revisited once line-electrification is complete and flatter-roofed (yet not any taller, nec') stock can be approved.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think one such select route considered for operation of Bi-Level passenger trains is the Trans-Pennine (eg Nuneaton-Felixstowe) corridor. This route is alegedly expected, at least, to carry Double-Stack container freight.

Firstly, Felixstowe - Nuneaton is not the Trans Pennine corridor. It is somewhat flatter…

Secondly, there has never been any consideration of double stacked containers on this route. Or indeed any other in this country.

The only route there has been any study into double deck trains is the South West Main Line. I know the chap who did the work. It was a purely theoretical exercise to test the constraints. The constraints were sufficiently major that no further work has been done, and the study is used simply to show people who are new to the industry when they ask “why don’t we have double deck trains like I saw on my holiday to Austria / France / Holland / USA / etc”

 

[swt_passenger]

'Not too sure would the (mandatory) arched/contoured roofs allow an upper 3-abreast seating config' with side-aisles. But even a downstairs (width-reduced to clear curved stn p'forms) 2+1 layout, the moderate capacity gains of below 30% would be more than compensated for via a +50% door provision ie centre of each side. 'Definitely get revisited once line-electrification is complete and flatter-roofed (yet not any taller, nec') stock can be approved.

Electrification doesn’t automatically provide for flatter roof stock. As previously explained. You‘re flogging a dead horse, as many have tried here since I’ve been a member. It’s remarkable this version of the thread has run for over 6 months now.

As @Bald Rick has pointed out, there are NO plans whatsoever.

 

[Shrop]

Electrification doesn’t automatically provide for flatter roof stock. As previously explained. You‘re flogging a dead horse, as many have tried here since I’ve been a member. It’s remarkable this version of the thread has run for over 6 months now.

As @Bald Rick has pointed out, there are NO plans whatsoever.

As you’ll see from my original post, I recognised the huge impracticalities for providing double deck trains in the UK. However that wasn’t the question, I asked whether some routes might have been costed such that they could be compared to the cost of others, because some routes might lend themselves better than others to the principle. Okay, it might be out of the question for anywhere at all, but just because it hasn’t been done before, does that make it right to dismiss it completely for any new (or perhaps one or two existing) railways?

For example, there is talk about a new route for Manchester to Liverpool. If this goes ahead - especially given that it could serve the airports for both these cities - it could become very popular with associated capacity issues at certain times. It would be a shame if double deck trains were to be dismissed without proper consideration, for a new route which might benefit from such trains. Think of HS2 - much criticism was made by badly informed journalists who said it wouldn’t be worth the huge expense of trains running at 225mph, when in fact the marginal cost of doing so wasn’t all that great, once a new line was being built. Similarly, perhaps the marginal cost of making the new Manchester to Liverpool route sufficient to accommodate double deck trains, might be worthy of consideration? (Apologies if this point has previously been discussed and I’ve missed it).