Double-Deck trains in UK

[Trainbike46]

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).

Both HS1 and HS2 (mostly*) have a European loading gauge. NPR/HS3, if it is built, would likely follow that too - though any trains that use it would be completely incapable of operating or even fitting on classic infrastructure.

*HS1 domestic platforms have standard UK platforms, which foul the lower end of the loading gauge. International platforms do comply, which is why Eurostar can use the European-sized class 374, and double-deck TGVs are under consideration for new cross-channel trains

 

[Brubulus]

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).

The line is looking to use existing infrastructure, (especially around Liverpool) so its unlikely that it will be gauge cleared to European levels.

 

[Trainbike46]

The line is looking to use existing infrastructure, (especially around Liverpool) so its unlikely that it will be gauge cleared to European levels

We obviously won't know for sure until we get some actual details over what, if anything they'd be building, but even if everything new-built follows European loading gauge, to actually use it requires all infrastructure to be new.

 

[Zomboid]

We obviously won't know for sure until we get some actual details over what, if anything they'd be building, but even if everything new-built follows European loading gauge, to actually use it requires all infrastructure to be new.

I wouldn't be surprised if anything new was built to HS2 gauge to permit a future project to link the two up, as the new Liverpool Manchester line is proposed to use the planned HS2 alignment.

 

[Shrop]

The line is looking to use existing infrastructure, (especially around Liverpool) so its unlikely that it will be gauge cleared to European levels.

Yes, I expected that, however if much of the new line could be built to accommodate double deck trains, then we would only be considering upgrades on relatively short sections. These short sections may of course be hugely expensive, but at least they should be costed. And without any bias too.

 

[zwk500]

I wouldn't be surprised if anything new was built to HS2 gauge to permit a future project to link the two up, as the new Liverpool Manchester line is proposed to use the planned HS2 alignment.

I'd be surprised if they were, although I do agree with you on the theory.

Yes, I expected that, however if much of the new line could be built to accommodate double deck trains, then we would only be considering upgrades on relatively short sections. These short sections may of course be hugely expensive, but at least they should be costed. And without any bias too.

Including without optimism bias?

 

[Zomboid]

be surprised if they were, although I do agree with you on the theory.

I don't think it'll happen any time soon, but the cost to make it compatible with the loading gauge ought to be pretty marginal.

 

[Trainbike46]

I'd be surprised if they were, although I do agree with you on the theory.

It'd be very shortsighted to build HS3/NPR's new infrastructure to a smaller loading gauge than HS2.

Yes, I expected that, however if much of the new line could be built to accommodate double deck trains, then we would only be considering upgrades on relatively short sections. These short sections may of course be hugely expensive, but at least they should be costed. And without any bias too.

Double-deckers on existing infrastructure isn't going to happen. Extra capacity can be provided much cheaper by running longer trains.

 

[zwk500]

I don't think it'll happen any time soon, but the cost to make it compatible with the loading gauge ought to be pretty marginal.

Raising a road isn't cheap. Even current structures aren't always built to W12 even today if it requires too much work to the road. (Unless W12 is the requirement of the project).


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2025 ==

It'd be very shortsighted to build HS3/NPR's new infrastructure to a smaller loading gauge than HS2.

Only if there was a serious proposal to only run captive stock. Otherwise itd be foolish to push up costs for a hypothetical capacity nobody ever intends to use.

There's an interesting 'what if' where BR set UIC GA as the default standard for all new structures in the 1955 Modernisation plan. After 70 years of rebuilding routes, conversion of some.areas to actual UIC clearance might be being talked about seriously.

 

[Zomboid]

Raising a road isn't cheap. Even current structures aren't always built to W12 even today if it requires too much work to the road. (Unless W12 is the requirement of the project

True, but I'm talking about an all new "high speed" railway which will have a lot of bored tunnels.

 

[Trainbike46]

Raising a road isn't cheap. Even current structures aren't always built to W12 even today if it requires too much work to the road. (Unless W12 is the requirement of the project).

Easy solution: replace the road with a higher footbridge. Cars don't deserve to cross railways anyway. /not serious

Seriously though, is this referring to rebuild existing structures, or new structures?

Only if there was a serious proposal to only run captive stock. Otherwise itd be foolish to push up costs for a hypothetical capacity nobody ever intends to use.

The original HS2 project did propose running captive stock, and NPR is proposed to share infrastructure with that. If not at least the infrastructure that was originally planned to be shared with HS2 is built to the loading gauge HS2 uses, no future government could choose to reinstate phase 2A and 2B in a way that allows captive stock as initially planned.
Therefore, it would be shortsighted to not build at least those sections to the larger loading gauge, as there is a serious proposal to run captive stock.

Of course, when you've done that, it becomes of interest to use the larger loading gauge for other parts of the project too, for example to enable extensions of HS2 services from Manchester to Leeds.

There's an interesting 'what if' where BR set UIC GA as the default standard for all new structures in the 1955 Modernisation plan. After 70 years of rebuilding routes, conversion of some.areas to actual UIC clearance might be being talked about seriously.

We could such a thing from now on, and maybe in 2100 there will be double-deck trains!

 

[Bald Rick]

AIUI: NPR, if built, will be built to continental gauge, possibly with derogation for platforms.

 

[Dennyboy]

I've further come to concede that what fleet is Captive within the UK, yet is compliant with Eurostar's Structure Gauge, might still be cascadable overseas (with or without mods/adj' to their wheelsets' gauge).

 

[zwk500]

I've further come to concede that what fleet is Captive within the UK, yet is compliant with Eurostar's Structure Gauge, might still be cascadable overseas (with or without mods/adj' to their wheelsets' gauge).

If it's compliant with UK platforms it would require substantial modification to be compliant with European platforms (except Ireland, where UK stock has transferred across albeit regauged). Locos built for the UK have moved across but they obviously aren't subject to the same access requirements.

 

[stuu]

Only if there was a serious proposal to only run captive stock. Otherwise itd be foolish to push up costs for a hypothetical capacity nobody ever intends to use.

I doubt there is much meaningful increase in costs from making a bridge 0.5m higher and 1m wider... If you look at any modern bridge over existing lines they are very often much larger clearances than is necessary for the loading gauge anyway

 

[Zomboid]

I doubt there is much meaningful increase in costs from making a bridge 0.5m higher and 1m wider... If you look at any modern bridge over existing lines they are very often much larger clearances than is necessary for the loading gauge anyway

I think the policy is to build big enough for electrification wherever possible.

Obviously you won't have to look far to find exceptions, but usually that's only a marginal.

 

[zwk500]

I doubt there is much meaningful increase in costs from making a bridge 0.5m higher and 1m wider... If you look at any modern bridge over existing lines they are very often much larger clearances than is necessary for the loading gauge anyway

There is if it means raising a road by 0.5m. And that's the key issue. I personally support a policy of building bridges to UIC gauge where practical, but recognise that at times it just isn't practical, and there's a value judgement in whether it's worth getting a route fully cleared, or just removing the obstacles you can for now.

A similar concept applies to W12 clearance, or "electrification-ready" works. If you can do it without meaningful cost increases, great. But sometimes you will come up against a problem that needs a serious amount of solving and in those cases you have to look at the requirements to use the capability.

 

[stuu]

There is if it means raising a road by 0.5m. And that's the key issue. I personally support a policy of building bridges to UIC gauge where practical, but recognise that at times it just isn't practical, and there's a value judgement in whether it's worth getting a route fully cleared, or just removing the obstacles you can for now.

A new railway is very unlikely to be built close enough to anything that 0.5m height makes much difference, they aren't going to thread it through any urban areas

 

[Shrop]

There is if it means raising a road by 0.5m. And that's the key issue. I personally support a policy of building bridges to UIC gauge where practical, but recognise that at times it just isn't practical, and there's a value judgement in whether it's worth getting a route fully cleared, or just removing the obstacles you can for now.

So build the new railway to the larger gauge, and if it's prohibitively expensive to keep going at that gauge, then design an easy cross-platform facility on to the UK gauge where needed. Almost everyone arriving into large cities are already used to changing transport mode as soon as they disembark ...

 

[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?

Even capacity-gains as modest as 20% (ie by interlacing deck levels eg 2+1 d'stairs plus 3-abreast upstairs with sunken side aisles), by the time an extra pair of doors is factored in, is effectively greater than another coach added to 6. Now, what's so insignificant with that?

 

[zwk500]

Even capacity-gains as modest as 20% (ie by interlacing deck levels eg 2+1 d'stairs plus 3-abreast upstairs with sunken side aisles), by the time an extra pair of doors is factored in, is effectively greater than another coach added to 6. Now, what's so insignificant with that?

What are your boarding and alighting times looking like with that layout?

 

[Dennyboy]

I would've thought that 2+2 on the top deck wouldn't be possible based on the AeroLiner's profile. Even with a lower flower for the +1 part of the seating it was cramped. But if we can only have 2+1 seating downstairs as well then I'm inclined to say any capacity would be well below a 50% increase like we would see on a Euroduplex (which are loco-hauled as well so don't even have the added traction motors that an EMU would).

Even capacity gains as modest as 20% would effectively add an extra coach per 5. Now, what's wrong with that?

 

[Dennyboy]

-Increased dwell-times? An extra door per side would more than offset the potentially slower loading/unloading.

What are your boarding and alighting times looking like with that layout?

 

[MotCO]

-Increased dwell-times? An extra door per side would more than offset the potentially slower loading/unloading.

But then you would need additional staircases which would reduce the seating capacity.

 

[NCT]

Cinque Terre and Cote d'Azur - double decker trains on high-volume riviera routes

I've had the privilege to sample both routes over the past week. Both routes are (relatively) high-frequency corridors with clockface timetables with no reservations and flexible ticketing. Cinque Terre has a half-hourly basic services (La Spezia Migliarina - Sestri Levante) with some bonuses...

www.railforums.co.uk

Avoid.

 

[35B]

Coming late to this discussion, I note points about headroom and width

At 6’6”, I’m always going to struggle to be accommodated. But my experience is that, where headroom is low, I absorb more capacity and move more slowly. That’s in two ways.

First is that there are chunks of the vehicle profile that I can’t use without stopping, meaning that I occupy space that “ought” to be available to others. The second is that, because I’m stooping, I can’t move at my normal pace when walking with luggage (proven on IC2000 stock).

Where width is concerned, the suggestion of 2+3 seating needs to be treated very carefully. In U.K. gauge stock, this is achieved by compressing seat widths and narrowing gangways. The effect is to make the middle seats undesirable and limit circulation (see a GA cl 720 for an example). This undermines the capacity rationale and delivers a bad compromise that is both passenger unfriendly and won’t take required demand.

 

[The Pelican]

I'm really glad to hear the UK is getting double decker trains on it's only Continental gauge line- it should be a great experience going on HS1 on the top deck of a train.
Who knows if the second best prospect for British double deck trains- HS2- will ever see them, although I hope it does if the Manchester branch ever gets finished. (presunably third best is some sort of gauge clearance in Kent, allowing some of the HS1 domestic trains to be double decker.)

Double decker carraiges have always been one of my favourite features of foreign railways, especially the SBB IC2000 and the DB Bombardier red reigonal coaches.

For those interested in the history of double decker trains in Europe, various French railways accomodated Parisian crowds with an early version in Victorian times, called a voiture imperial, one type of which was a Voiture Bidel. There was a large build of double deck trains for suburban Paris in the 1930s, the picture is one of these, from Wikipedia. The forerunner of today's Bombardier trains ran between Lubeck and Hamburg at a similar time.

About the only British style railway system I know that runs them is Sydney, and several places in Canada.

 

[NCT]

It's pretty likely the option of 20 will be exercised to replace the Class 373s.

 

[JamesT]

There is some scepticism that this order will lead to double deck trains through the Tunnel - Eurostar need to replace the Thalys sets, and 30 is only really enough to do that. Jon Worth has the figures plus some extra detail about concerns about Tunnel evacuation rules: https://jonworth.eu/eurostar-ordering-just-30-alstom-trains-pragmatism-and-a-lack-of-ambition/

Though if these trains are to replace the Thalys sets, why would they be maintained at Temple Mills?

 

[MicroLithium]

It's pretty likely the option of 20 will be exercised to replace the Class 373s.

Maybe, but I understand the order book is pretty full for TGV-Ms, so if Eurostar don't take up the option for a couple of years, it could be a long wait to see HS1 from the top deck