Double-deck trains

[thenorthern]

Double decker trains won't happen in this country lets face it.

Talking of the 4DD trains though looking at the diagram they had 6 seats across which seems rather a lot by todays standards. Is it just me or have seats got wider since then as people have got fatter.

 

[Joe Paxton]

From what I've read, the passenger experience in the Bulleid 4DD units was pretty grim.

 

[daikilo]

From what I've read, the passenger experience in the Bulleid 4DD units was pretty grim.

Boading/diembarking from the upper compartments was a challenge, and occured through the lower compartments. However, the 4DDs had all the passenger space above the solebar and not in a sunken centre section as is done today.

It was a bit like the old double-deck buses with the sunken side upper-deck aisle and quad seats - claustrophobic when full.

 

[thenorthern]

Given that trains are overcrowded at times and on some services you accept you will have The Daily Mail shoved in your face because of it being overcrowded I would think passengers squashed onto steps on an overcrowded moving train would be considered a health and safety nightmare.

 

[AM9]

Double decker trains won't happen in this country lets face it.

Talking of the 4DD trains though looking at the diagram they had 6 seats across which seems rather a lot by todays standards. Is it just me or have seats got wider since then as people have got fatter.

6 seats across the width was standard in BR MKI suburban stock. The gap where the steps went would make those rows 2+3, the steps being 1 seat wide. Just imagine the 2+3 seating in current stock (e.g. Electrostars) where the 6th seat width is the gangway.

The big problem with the trains were the lack of effective ventilation on the upper level, (no opening windows owing to limit of loading gauge) and low ceiling above seats on lower level, (i.e. where the seats above were).

 

[Joe Paxton]

Boading/disembarking from the upper compartments was a challenge, and occured through the lower compartments. However, the 4DDs had all the passenger space above the solebar and not in a sunken centre section as is done today.

It was a bit like the old double-deck buses with the sunken side upper-deck aisle and quad seats - claustrophobic when full.

Thinking about it, my recollection is that a significant complaint regarding the ambience was that it could get pretty stuffy as ventilation was poor in the top compartment, which didn't have any opening windows (I think for safety reasons).

Looking at some photos, I suspect some passengers would find it claustrophobic even when lightly loaded.

(An aside... despite the multiplicity of railway photographers out there, it always seems that shots of carriage interiors take a distinct back seat, which I think is a great shame.)

 

[thenorthern]

The 4DD trains were built at an entirely different time when trains had compartments on rather than the carriages you can walk through now.

 

[jopsuk]

I'm using it to highlight what fits inside a 14m x 4m x 2.5m empty space and still leave 4.5m at either end over the bogies for doors, staircases, lavatories etc.

But, as people will keep on repeating, there isn't a box that shape. There's a significant taper below platform level.

 

[AlexNL]

In The Netherlands the vestibule is at platform height with the toilet and then space for a bay of seats or bike space or a wheelchair space and disabled toilet.

Not quite. While the all-station "Sprinter" services provide level access (if operated with SLT or FLIRT), if you want to get into an intercity train (VIRM, DDZ, ICR, ICM) you still have to step up from the platform into the train. The next generation of IC rolling stock will provide level access, but these trains won't enter service until 2021.


When it comes to accessible double decker trains, Siemens have developed a hybrid platform called "Desiro HC" (High Capacity): by combining single-deck end cars with double deck intermediate coaches, Siemens aim to optimize capacity while providing a fully accessible train. Traction equipment is located in the single-deck cars, which leaves more space for passengers in the trailing cars.

The French have taken a rather interesting approach by mixing double-deck coaches with single-deck intermediate coaches. The double-deck coaches provide a lot of capacity by just offering seats. Doors, toilets, facilities for prams and wheelchairs, and traction equipment are all located in the single deck intermediate coaches.

This is the Bombardier OMNEO, also known as the Régio2N:

Could a OMNEO like design work on the British rail network?

 

[daikilo]

Could a OMNEO like design work on the British rail network?

As it is, I think, outside any British loading gauge, I guess the answer is no, for now. Whether it would be possible to shrink the profile to fit, I don't know.

 

[chubs]

Is it just me or have seats got wider since then as people have got fatter.

The seats on the ceps, veps, cigs and other junk in the latter Connex days were far wider than any modern stock I have been on.

 

[daikilo]

The seats on the ceps, veps, cigs and other junk in the latter Connex days were far wider than any modern stock I have been on.

Is that a statement of fact or a perception? That said, I think longitudinal aisles have got wider probably to increase standing space.

 

[jon0844]

Ah, about time. I was wondering when we would get around to the annual "Could double deckers fit on our railways" discussion.

We should have them, and launch them on December 25th to mark the start of Christmas Day train services.

 

[Class 170101]

Watch the station dwell times increase as people move up and down the stairs. That will actually reduce capacity.

 

[JohnR]

Bulleid didnt design the DD units to try and fit a double decker unit into the Southern loading gauge - he did it specifically to destroy the arguments for one. Even in the 1940s, there was the annual "Why cant we have double decker trains like X"....

So he managed to squeeze in a double decker unit. The problems were as already mentioned. Stuffy upstairs (albeit with no air con). Extended dwell times. Only to be used on certain routes due to the loading gauge (I seem to recall the Dartford loop lines?). Lower deck passengers getting to examine the feet of those seated above. Only marginal gains in seating capacity.

Given that - is there a case for someone to design and build a similar unit. The best attempt to squeeze a double decker commuter train using today's technology. It would surely kill off all further speculation!

 

[jopsuk]

Wasn't there someone who built some sort of mock-up for trade shows last year?

 

[route:oxford]

But, as people will keep on repeating, there isn't a box that shape. There's a significant taper below platform level.

Ok, so I've googled around and the best that I can find is that below platform level, the maximum width is 8'8", which is 2.64m.

If that isn't correct, what is the maximum width below platform level?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ok, so I've googled around and the best that I can find is that below platform level, the maximum width is 8'8", which is 2.64m.

23m Desiros are 2.673m wide, so only 3.3cm wider and perfectly OK with 2+2 seating - but how square is it? They feel spacious because the body profile is very square.

As regards standing, there's only just enough headroom on Euro-Dostos. Take 30cm off and standing isn't really going to be possible.

I think a 3+2 seated 23m vehicle is going to win out in overall capacity.

 

[najaB]

If that isn't correct, what is the maximum width below platform level?

The only accurate answer to that question is: depends. I've just [thread=3074353]posted a link[/thread] to what I hope is a useful document.

 

[superalbs]

Wasn't there someone who built some sort of mock-up for trade shows last year?

Are you referring to this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-are-designed-to-help-ease-overcrowding.html ?

 

[swt_passenger]

Ah, about time. I was wondering when we would get around to the annual "Could double deckers fit on our railways" discussion.

Shall I post the link to the DfT 'double deck trains' report again, like I usually do?

The one that thoroughly explains, with the aid of drawings and costings, why it isn't a solution on existing routes?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....whitepapersupportingdocs/provevalddtrains.pdf

 

[HSTEd]

You could build a double deck train that could fit into British platforms and have flat entry and corridors on both levels, it would just require a lot more headroom.
Standard gauge is stable up to 20 feet so its probably not a problem.

Providing that much headroom on existing lines is clearly impractical but maybe it should be considered for new construction?

 

[rebmcr]

The extra dwell time would destroy the capacity provided by an additional deck on this train, AND destroy some extra capacity by delaying the next train.

It's a net negative based on platform occupancy times alone.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

If that isn't correct, what is the maximum width below platform level?

The Lower Sector Vehicle Gauge can be found in Appendix C of the following:

https://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/gert8073 iss 3.pdf

2534mm but the dynamic movement of the train must fit within the LSVG so the rolling stock will be built even narrower.

 

[najaB]

2534mm but the dynamic movement of the train must fit within the LSVG so the rolling stock will be built even narrower.

Hence why I said "Depends."

 

[HSTEd]

The extra dwell time would destroy the capacity provided by an additional deck on this train, AND destroy some extra capacity by delaying the next train.

It's a net negative based on platform occupancy times alone.

That depends on what interior you fit.

You could have seating for longer journeys on the upper deck, and an S-Stock style interior on the bottom dead.
It is likely people would move down to the area around the doors before the train stopped. Like they do on buses.

 

[Dennyboy]

It's no bad thing that UK's (Classic Compatible) Structure Gauge would only accommodate rolling stock that are of Single Deck and/or (slightly interlaced) 'Interdeck' i.e. the latter taking cues from Bristol's Lodeka Bus. TOCs & transport regulators don't really WANT passenger capacity increases greater than what extra door provision could feasibly cater for. Given how the bus-example didn't 'sell' due to upstairs four-abreast seating coupled with only one passageway, sacrificing one-abreast in favor of an extra side-passageway would be a game-changer. That's even if below-platform-width is too tight for 2+2 abreast. After all one extra (third) door per side, if dwell-times aren't to be extended, will only allow for a 50% capacity increase anyway. The lower saloons could be ramp-accessed from end doors whereas central doors need only be step-accessed. The lesser climb of stairs to upper (slightly but noticeably lower than our foreign counterparts) passageways would free up floor-space to have more OF them e.g. eight mini-staircases per carriage thus loading times sorted. Lastly, the less generous articulation of bogies relative to chassis/body-frame might even afford width between inner wheels (unless diameter of such wheel-sets suitably shrunk) to route a gently sloped ramp that only 'double-buggies' need straggle with. 'Thinking caps' on dear pram designers. We've done our bit.

 

[3141]

taking cues from Bristol's Lodeka Bus. TOCs & transport regulators don't really WANT passenger capacity increases greater than what extra door provision could feasibly cater for. Given how the bus-example didn't 'sell' due to upstairs four-abreast seating coupled with only one passageway, sacrificing one-abreast in favor of an extra side-passageway would be a game-changer.

Double deckers with four abreast seating upstairs did "sell" for at least twenty years where operators wanted a bus with larger capacity than a single decker on routes with low bridges. Bristol's Lodekka was the first double deck bus that managed to combine a low height with a normal top-deck layout, i.e. centre gangway and two seats each side, in place of the off-side sunken gangway on previous low-height buses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Double deckers with four abreast seating upstairs did "sell" for at least twenty years where operators wanted a bus with larger capacity than a single decker on routes with low bridges. Bristol's Lodekka was the first double deck bus that managed to combine a low height with a normal top-deck layout, i.e. centre gangway and two seats each side, in place of the off-side sunken gangway on previous low-height buses.

They did, but they were effectively replaced by the better (for passengers) option of a longer single-decker once laws on vehicle length were made looser.

But back to trains, as I said above it'd be pointless. You'd get 2+1 on each deck at best (and quite narrow at that), low headroom, slow access, and seats in only about 2/3 of the vehicle. You would get more seats in the same length of single-deck 3+2 seating and, much as it isn't great, it would be preferable to passengers to do that, too. (3+2 isn't bad off peak when it can be occupied to 2+1 without feeling packed, unlike 2+2 where it feels packed when occupancy reaches 1+1, i.e. someone sits next to you).

 

[175mph]

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.