Double-deck trains

[TRAX]

True, and wider (widest EMU is 3.06 m).

 

[AM9]

Would HS1 be able to take double decker stock? If not, why?

It would seem like a good idea when one day the Javelins get replaced.

Thereby limiting their services to St Pancras to Ashford only. Hardly worth the expenditure.

 

[175mph]

I heard a long time ago that it is to do with tunnels, the UK is the only country in Europe which cannot take double decker trains because the tunnels are too low. That may come from the fact that in WWII, the rail network on the continent was so badly damaged that it was easier to start again. When starting again, you can incorporate new technology more easily, whereas in the UK, we carried on with the same network built in the Victorian days.

I though the emerald island shared the same issues as Britain does in not being able to use double decker trains?

 

[Loki]

All HS1 infrastructure (including Temple Mills depot) supports the largest continental trains including double-deckers. Same will be for HS2. The new class 374 is build to a larger loading gauge as well as the shunter locomotives that regularly run on HS1, the freight locomotives that run shuttles in Channel Tunnel, some of the freight rolling stock and some of the HS1 maintenance vehicles. It is possible that an operator who wished to run trains on HS1 introduces double decker trains for destinations to the continent. That being said the Javelins actually leave HS1 hence why they are single decks.

 

[30907]

I heard a long time ago that it is to do with tunnels, the UK is the only country in Europe which cannot take double decker trains because the tunnels are too low. That may come from the fact that in WWII, the rail network on the continent was so badly damaged that it was easier to start again.

As already pointed out, the mainland loading gauge was already much larger (and Germany/Austria is larger still) While parts of the system were badly damaged, tunnels were rather difficult to target (!) and overbridges weren't particularly worth it - unlike viaducts.

 

[James James]

You don’t get much for your double deck. That example given above of 1400 passengers in a 400m DD train is very little increase over a conventional GB 2+2 layout. 3.5 passengers per metre length. Scale up a 444 type layout to 400m and it would still be carrying almost 3 passengers per metre anyway. The NR report suggests that the same gains as DD trains provide can mostly be achieved with lengthening and minor increases to frequency, without rebuilding most of the infrastructure at vast expense.

I don't think your estimates are right. My local double-deckers have a a continous upper deck, where only a little space in the top deck is lost to stairs themselves, and a bit more due to fitting things around stairs - on a single-deck train the equivalent amount of space would be lost to doors + bathrooms. That's not including the lower deck which adds another 38 seats + the bathrooms (and spacious vestibules, plus you can sit on the stairs in a pinch). It's about 50% more space, per carriage.

Agreed, 400m of the train I describe can actually carry 1400, as you say. 400m of class 444 only carries 1100 people, but most significantly that's with a much denser layout: the 444 is mostly airline seating, and from what I can remember has very little legroom. The double-deckers I describe have window-aligned bay seating - if you convert that to UK style seating I imagine you'd add another 10-20% seats? That's now 1100 vs 1600 people for a 400m train.

Whether or not it's worth it is a separate question, that probably depends on the specific route and existing utilisation. The UK rail network already seems fragile, so increasing frequency doesn't appear to be that viable everywhere.

 

[USRailFan]

As already pointed out, the mainland loading gauge was already much larger (and Germany/Austria is larger still) While parts of the system were badly damaged, tunnels were rather difficult to target (!) and overbridges weren't particularly worth it - unlike viaducts.

In Norway at least, we got the bigger gauge already in the late 19th century... In fact our CAP gauge (1067mm) lines used the same loading gauge as British standard gauge... Hence why British Mk2s could be exported to NZ and only needed a change of bogies...

 

[BRX]

There is a modern concept, unfortunately most sources and Wikipedia are in German only.

Does anyone know what the status of this is - is it likely to be developed?

It seems rather promising but is there a catch somewhere - it's expensive to build, or doesn't work for commuter routes, or something?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

It seems rather promising but is there a catch somewhere - it's expensive to build, or doesn't work for commuter routes, or something?

It could probably run on HS2, but usually double deck trains are too big to fit the existing tunnels, bridges, platforms etc.

 

[175mph]

It could probably run on HS2, but usually double deck trains are too big to fit the existing tunnels, bridges, platforms etc.

Couldn't it possibly run on HS1 also?

 

[najaB]

It could probably run on HS2, but usually double deck trains are too big to fit the existing tunnels, bridges, platforms etc.

That was the point of the design study. It was sized to fit the UK structure gauge.

 

[BRX]

It could probably run on HS2, but usually double deck trains are too big to fit the existing tunnels, bridges, platforms etc.

The whole point of it is that it fits in the normal UK loading gauge.

 

[AM9]

The whole point of it is that it fits in the normal UK loading gauge.

But it would be a waste of money because with a virtually unusable lower deck, and far more obstructions to boarding and alighting, their use would bring little if any increase in route capacity.

 

[3141]

I didn't see any detail of the lower deck on the video, which in itself suggests that it's not very effective, but certainly the upper deck has low headroom and, apparently, only room for 2+1 seats. Low headroom combined with steps to get to and from the upper deck would increase dwell times.

I recall an article in Modern Railways three or four years ago - very possibly about this same design - but there's a difference between something that fits within the UK loading gauge and a DD train that could be used in practice.

 

[najaB]

But it would be a waste of money because with a virtually unusable lower deck...

They got as far as building and then displaying a mock-up at a trade exhibition so I think it would have been figured out quite quickly if it was virtually unusable.

 

[30740]

There was an official paper on this pretty recently - not many years ago. I can't remember by whom - DfT, RSSB maybe...... The upshot was, what you gain in capacity, you lose in dwell time. All at high cost. So pointless. The end.

 

[najaB]

I didn't see any detail of the lower deck on the video, which in itself suggests that it's not very effective, but certainly the upper deck has low headroom and, apparently, only room for 2+1 seats. Low headroom combined with steps to get to and from the upper deck would increase dwell times.

The headroom does appear a bit low, but that's over the window seats. Over the aisle it doesn't look that much lower than some current stock.

 

[bastien]

There was an official paper on this pretty recently - not many years ago. I can't remember by whom - DfT, RSSB maybe...... The upshot was, what you gain in capacity, you lose in dwell time. All at high cost. So pointless. The end.

Heaven forbid the extra floor space is used to improve comfort or anything crazy like that!

 

[AM9]

Heaven forbid the extra floor space is used to improve comfort or anything crazy like that!

The only reason for looking at the complications of a double deck coach running within the UK loading gauge is to increase capacity, - and for the nth time, it doesn't give anything worth wasting the money on. Having passenger accommodation that provides more floorspace but reduces the comfort for a large percentile of the population is not what anybody can call 'improved comfort'.

 

[najaB]

Having passenger accommodation that provides more floorspace but reduces the comfort for a large percentile of the population is not what anybody can call 'improved comfort'.

Again, it got as far as a mock-up shown at a major trade show. If it was as much of a non-starter as some are making it out to be then it would have been laughed out of the door.

 

[swt_passenger]

There was an official paper on this pretty recently - not many years ago. I can't remember by whom - DfT, RSSB maybe...... The upshot was, what you gain in capacity, you lose in dwell time. All at high cost. So pointless. The end.

Maybe you’re thinking of the report I linked to in post #51 of this thread. The subject gets restarted so often, but this isn’t even the most recent thread on DD trains, which I agree won’t happen in normal loading gauge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe you’re thinking of the report I linked to in post #51 of this thread. The subject gets restarted so often, but this isn’t even the most recent thread on DD trains, which I agree won’t happen in normal loading gauge.

I am no great fan of 3+2, but I can't see how 3+2 wouldn't be better than a very cramped DD set.

The thing to go for is low-floor, not DD...

 

[BRX]

If anyone were to click on the link that I quoted above, they could see what the proposal actually looks like. There are 360 degree internal views here.

http://360-host.de/ae3000/

It doesn't look "very cramped" to me.

 

[hkstudent]

I am no great fan of 3+2, but I can't see how 3+2 wouldn't be better than a very cramped DD set.

The thing to go for is low-floor, not DD...

Well, think about the middle seat people for the 3+2 layout. It's not a really nice experience

 

[najaB]

Well, think about the middle seat people for the 3+2 layout. It's not a really nice experience

Many airlines use 737s and 757s with 3-3 seating for flights much longer than most train journeys in the UK.

 

[JKF]

Many airlines use 737s and 757s with 3-3 seating for flights much longer than most train journeys in the UK.

Yes, but (bar the occasional toilet visit) nobody has to shuffle about to let someone off part way through the journey.

I think I’ve suggested it on another one of these threads, but the way to manage dwell time issues using DD stock on HS1/HS2 is making the top deck reserved seating for people travelling for the whole journey, where dwell times won’t cause delays (although I recognise there’s normally a few steps down to the lower deck which might still slow things up a bit). Or use on non-stop services such as direct Manchester-London or Leeds-London.

 

[hwl]

Heaven forbid the extra floor space is used to improve comfort or anything crazy like that!

The longer dwell times reduced the maximum train frequency (tph) so the same capacity ended up being provided by fewer trains but with more people on them with more terminus station platform capacity required.

 

[hwl]

I am no great fan of 3+2, but I can't see how 3+2 wouldn't be better than a very cramped DD set.

The thing to go for is low-floor, not DD...

Why low floor? It results in split floor height which is less flexible overall and less width lower down reduces floor area...

 

[najaB]

Or use on non-stop services such as direct Manchester-London or Leeds-London.

I would imagine that these trains would be used for limited stop services - so, for example, London to Edinburgh with stops at York and Newcastle only (or whatever the routing is after HS2 Phase 2).

 

[bastien]

I would imagine that these trains would be used for limited stop services - so, for example, London to Edinburgh with stops at York and Newcastle only (or whatever the routing is after HS2 Phase 2).

Or Cross-Country. Upstairs for long distance reservations, downstairs for hop on/hop off passengers.