Double-decker trains could hit Britain’s railways to ease overcrowding

[Blamethrower]

You have to compare like with like.

A DD train with the same number and size of vestibules and door openings per metre length of coach will have longer dwell times than a single decker. That is on the assumption that it has more passengers on board.

What reduces dwell times is :

More doors
Wider doors
Quicker door opening / close procedure
Larger stand back area in the vestibules
Level access
Good PIS
Fewer passengers

All of these can be done regardless of how many decks the stock has. See the new Thameslink and Crossrail units.

Yes and No. If we are comparing like with like then we DO have to compare the amount of passengers. On a double deck with lots more capacity, dwell times only become an issue once it becomes full to standing, like any train, so basically almost double what there is now. Hence the dwell time issue is moot (for probably a few reasons)

Agreed that your suggestions will decrease dwell times, however, have any of the new stock addressed this issue recently other than crossrail? (3 double doors per carriage)

But then I can't imagine there'll be many seats, the crossrail trains look like glorified tube stock to me, not fit for a regional railway.

 

[swt_passenger]

But then I can't imagine there'll be many seats, the crossrail trains look like glorified tube stock to me, not fit for a regional railway.

50 seats per car on average. 450 per unit over 9 cars. Given that some cars will have multi-purpose wheelchair space, some cars will have more than 50.

That rules out 378 or S7 style interiors. The third set of doors effectively cancels out the extra 2m length per car, so Crossrail ought to have seating density similar to a 50 seat 20m carriage; so I reckon a reasonable amount of 2+2 is needed to get them all in.

 

[edwin_m]

The platforms are easy compared to the bridges (oh, and not forgetting the tunnels). Visualise all those under and over bridges where the lines between Clapham Junction, Victoria and Waterloo meet and cross for instance. They are nearly all parallel multiple girder bridges, usually one track wide spans. All those girders that sit up between the tracks would need to be further apart for larger gauge trains. Now multiply that out over the whole southeast network...

An individual bridge may be more difficult than an individual platform, but the bridges can be done one by one over a long period. The problem with the platforms is that once one is modified for UIC gauge, normal British gauge stock can no longer use it unless some kind of temporary extension is added that can be removed quickly when the route goes over to UIC gauge trains (as suggested above). Even then, there is still a problem afterwards if trains on several routes call at the same platform.

Some platforms are also pretty narrow to start with so could become dangerous if they are made narrower and also have to cope with more people. Vauxhall for example seems fairly horrendous, and I've not even been there in the peak hour!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Erm, what about Fenchurch street? Im pretty sure you wouldn't be able to do much with it given the building on top of it. Cant lower it or you would have to lower the whole viaduct it runs in on and that would also mean having to redo the DLR too. That's gotta be pricey.

Here's a picture.

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/04/31/4043144_838583ab.jpg

From this it looks as if there is plenty of room to raise the overhead line, especially if it is replaced by a bar conductor. It may also be possible to lower the track by replacing it with slab track. About 400mm extra is required to go from the UK gauges up to UIC B+ which is the usual gauge for double deck passenger trains.

 

[AM9]

But then I can't imagine there'll be many seats, the crossrail trains look like glorified tube stock to me, not fit for a regional railway.

That's because it isn't a regional railway. It's a double ended commuter railway in the peak and an outer suburban line during off peak.

I don't know what you think 'tube stock' is like these days but there aren't many (or any) 2x2 transverse seats (there are a very few on the Met S8s but there not really tube trains anyway).

 

[Blamethrower]

That's because it isn't a regional railway. It's a double ended commuter railway in the peak and an outer suburban line during off peak.

I don't know what you think 'tube stock' is like these days but there aren't many (or any) 2x2 transverse seats (there are a very few on the Met S8s but there not really tube trains anyway).

Exterior-wise, I should've mentioned.

Either way, if you take 2 trains of the same length and put 1 with 3 sets of doors per coach and 1 with 2 sets per coach, there will surely be less seats on the train with 3 doors per coach?

bit off topic I know

 

[AM9]

Exterior-wise, I should've mentioned.

Either way, if you take 2 trains of the same length and put 1 with 3 sets of doors per coach and 1 with 2 sets per coach, there will surely be less seats on the train with 3 doors per coach?

bit off topic I know

No don't apologise for being off-topic, it's actually bang-on topic. The thread is titled: 'Double-decker trains could hit Britain’s railways to ease overcrowding'.
What we're talking about is how to get the maximum number of passengers from A to B on limited infrastructure, i.e. peak-hours traffic.
Some are advocating double deck trains, which bring with them expensive infrastructure investment and deliver reduced interoperability.
Others say that accepting the universality of a loading gauge that limits us to single-deck rolling stock does not reduce the maximum capacity of a high volume service provided certain well-tried steps are taken to address the types of trains and their operation.
Both single and double-deck solutions have limits of capacity that when reached will take infrastructure investment to a much higher level.
So, what we are talking about is commuter provision. Experience both in the UK and overseas, e.g. Hong Kong, Singapore, New York (they are just three abroad that I have personally experienced) have demonstrated very high passenger throughput with short dwells and close-run trains. Comparing this with Paris RER which I have also used, where boarding and alighting is less well organised by the public. For a start, at busy stops where there is a lot of interchange, the limited space by the doors mean that many passengers have to climb or decend steps before they alight, and those boarding can only enter at the speed of the slowest stair-climber.

Back to your point about 'regional railway'. Whichever route we are talking about, whether it is SWML, Crossrail (1,2,3 etc.) or any other high density service, we are talking about a commuter loading with the average journey time being well under an hour, not an all-day traffic with families sitting around tables sampling the delights of the buffet.
The noisiest few commuters may whinge about their 3 minute frequency trains not being as comfortable as a class 444, but they are thankfully ignored. They would be the first to complain when costs shoot up to pay for the trains that spend 20 hours in sidings collecting a suntan and being washed by rain. So for most passengers, peak or otherwise, the ability to travel reliably with enough space to stand if it is fully loaded and enough seats in quieter periods is the best compromise.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Really?

Citing dwell times as a reason NOT to go with DD is moot.

Dwell times only exist to be as long as the operator wants them to be. As an easy comparison, go to Bletchley and observe the dwell time difference between a 377 and a 350.

Look at the dwell times of a pendolino, ridiculous!

It's all about providing a large enough vestibule area and large enough doors as is proven in Holland every single day. This CAN be done in the UK but it seems like every new train built has a longer dwell time due to "waiting for the train to come to a complete stop" and everyone has to listen to the siren indicating "doors opening".

You are effectively using stupid H&S initiatives to prove that DD's don't work and that is moot. We CAN (as proven by 377's and ViRMs) have a short dwell time at stations, we CAN build the stock to fit within our gauge, we CAN clear the routes for slightly larger trains.

It all depends on inclination and as British we love to bad mouth any idea because that would mean change, and we fear change. "We've always done it like this ergo...." mentality is a poison of this country.

A DD commuter service will EASILY have shorter dwell times because people can just get on and off, rather than trying to get in/out of tiny, overcrowded vestibules and 3+2 seating.

What people are assuming is that the DDs will be full from the moment they start, which they won't.

Dwell times become important when routes are running near to the possible limit of two tracks and especially when there is no possibility of having two platforms per line. Increasing frequency to 30tph - which is what Crossrail is designed for - means that there can only be two minutes between each train and this includes all deceleration and acceleration on top of the time taken for passengers. Even if double deck stock only increased dwell times by 10 or 15 seconds it would have an enormous impact upon the maximum number of trains per hour through the core, thus negating any benefit from each train carrying more passengers.

 

[starrymarkb]

And even the French are moving away from DD for Paris inner suburban work with their new Spacium wide bodied single deck units (think Something like SWTs future class 707)

 

[Blamethrower]

Dwell times become important when routes are running near to the possible limit of two tracks and especially when there is no possibility of having two platforms per line. Increasing frequency to 30tph - which is what Crossrail is designed for - means that there can only be two minutes between each train and this includes all deceleration and acceleration on top of the time taken for passengers. Even if double deck stock only increased dwell times by 10 or 15 seconds it would have an enormous impact upon the maximum number of trains per hour through the core, thus negating any benefit from each train carrying more passengers.

With such massive tunnels, the use of single deck stock is massively underusing the capabilities of the infrastructure. Maybe it is future proofed for when it reaches capacity, but from what I've read, many expect crossrail to be at capacity shortly after opening.

Then what?

In my opinion, the only option is to double deck, crossrail will need the capacity and fast accelerating dd units with large doors (plus gauge clearance to termini) should've been in the original remit for crossrail. Wasn't the originally built to broad gauge? Would clearance be less of an issue therefore on the gwr side of crossrail?

However we have to think of the platforms.

Why do British platforms protrude into the loading gauge?

Would shaving platforms and building slightly larger trains based on the French model be a more cost effective way to increase capacity?

I am clearly an enthusiast and not an expert, this issue interests me greatly, apologies for all the questions

 

[NSEFAN]

Then what?

We realise that London's economy is overheated and we need to spread the load to other cities?

 

[edwin_m]

In my opinion, the only option is to double deck, crossrail will need the capacity and fast accelerating dd units with large doors (plus gauge clearance to termini) should've been in the original remit for crossrail. Wasn't the originally built to broad gauge? Would clearance be less of an issue therefore on the gwr side of crossrail?

Might be slightly easier on the GW side, but still very difficult.

Why do British platforms protrude into the loading gauge?

British platforms were built to be close to the steps of the trains, which are smaller than Continental trains so as to fit through the smaller bridges and tunnels. Nobody was really thinking about the options for running Continental trains at the time, except possibly the Great Central and even there I believe the platforms were built incompatible with Continental gauge.

Would shaving platforms and building slightly larger trains based on the French model be a more cost effective way to increase capacity?

The platforms would have to be "shaved" so far that the gap when stepping to existing trains would be dangerous. As posted above, you could perhaps convert platforms exclusively used by one route by making them smaller and adding a temporary filler all of which would be removed when the line was cut over to new larger trains. However conventional British trains then couldn't use the platform, which would be a problem as every platform on the GW and GE Crossrail routes will also be used regularly by other trains.

 

[starrymarkb]

The only way to do such a conversion would be to fit UK size trains with retractable steps to bridge the gap. Easy enough on new builds - might be difficult to retrofit though

 

[edwin_m]

The only way to do such a conversion would be to fit UK size trains with retractable steps to bridge the gap. Easy enough on new builds - might be difficult to retrofit though

Yes, and it would need a fairly sizeable fleet fitting, given the number of residual trains that will share platforms with Crossrail service (for example).

 

[DownSouth]

The only way to do such a conversion would be to fit UK size trains with retractable steps to bridge the gap. Easy enough on new builds - might be difficult to retrofit though

Think laterally - an automatic retractable step could be a useful solution, but why hobble it by insisting it could only work if it was located on the train?

 

[AM9]

Think laterally - an automatic retractable step could be a useful solution, but why hobble it by insisting it could only work if it was located on the train?

That might just be viable at statiions where platform edge doors are fitted but unworkable on a conventional 200m + open one. The problem with Crossrail is that the new underground stations have peds but the ones where conventional UK gauge trains would need to interwork are all open.

 

[CC 72100]

And even the French are moving away from DD for Paris inner suburban work with their new Spacium wide bodied single deck units (think Something like SWTs future class 707)

I'm guessing you're referring to the Z50000 "Francilien" units? These are in fact like-for-like replacements for other single-deck stock: push-pull sets on the Transilien J (Ermount-Eaubonne), P (Meaux & Coulommiers), and H, and for single-deck units on the line L.

The longer workings on the line J (Mantes via Poissy or via Conflans fin d'Oise) will, for the short-medium term, rest in the hands of double-deck push pull stock. The Francilien sets would have too little capacity.

 

[starrymarkb]

Think laterally - an automatic retractable step could be a useful solution, but why hobble it by insisting it could only work if it was located on the train?

Probably because it would be far easier to mount it on the train rather then a 2-300m platform. The on train mechanism would be pretty light weight with maybe just a single motor required to extend/retract it. Plus if one fails you only have a door out of service on a single unit rather then an entire platform
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm guessing you're referring to the Z50000 "Francilien" units? These are in fact like-for-like replacements for other single-deck stock: push-pull sets on the Transilien J (Ermount-Eaubonne), P (Meaux & Coulommiers), and H, and for single-deck units on the line L.

The longer workings on the line J (Mantes via Poissy or via Conflans fin d'Oise) will, for the short-medium term, rest in the hands of double-deck push pull stock. The Francilien sets would have too little capacity.

Thanks. I stand corrected there - I was pretty sure SNCF had been talking about converting DD but obviously they have decided against it

 

[CC 72100]

Thanks. I stand corrected there - I was pretty sure SNCF had been talking about converting DD but obviously they have decided against it

No worries - there's a lot going on at the moment.

On the subject of double-decker trains, a batch of Regio2N (vile looking things - the Alstom offering looks much nicer!) double-deck trains has been ordered by the STIF to replace the Z5600 on the Transilien line R (Paris -> Montargis / Montereau), so it will be a like-for-like replacement, as the Z5600 are also double-deck. Given that all of these trains are first stop Melun (30 minutes from Paris), I think this qualifies more as outer-suburban. The new sets will probably also be trashed in 5 minutes... :roll:

 

[starrymarkb]

With the Regio2N From the front it looks OK, but agree it's a very odd looking unit. Especially that short Driving Generator vehicle with no upper deck! (Wonder how noisy it will be in there when running away from the knitting with a big diesel above the seating)

 

[Hartington]

Have Talgo ever proposed a DD? After all, they have a low floor as a starting point.

 

[Olaf]

This is an article from the Daily Mail, so perhaps needs to be taken with a (very) large pinch of salt, but I thought was worthy of discussion. I am curious as to which Network Rail reports the article is referring – Presumably a draft Route Utilisation Strategy or somesuch.

I think I have seen the possibility of double-deck trains on the South West main line before, where it was largely ruled out due to the complications of fitting such trains into the restrictive British loading gauge. I've highlighted a couple of pertinent sentences to this effect mid-article.

Aren't these just the Route Studies published by NR? If that is the case, it seems that the Mail has missed that they are in the public domain and and are promoting a rival in the article.

 

[341o2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

I'm surprised no one has mentioned these yet.

you got there before me. In 1949 the Southern, now reigion of BR introduced two DD units for services where platform lengthning was not practical. complaints were made regarding cramped conditions and poor ventilation. Also no communication cord in certain comartments, one passenger mugged

 

[swt_passenger]

Aren't these just the Route Studies published by NR? If that is the case, it seems that the Mail has missed that they are in the public domain and and are promoting a rival in the article.

The fact that the article concerned a Route Study was pointed out on the first page of this thread, but you're right, it's a fairly amateur attempt to imply that the Times had seen something they shouldn't have. Surprising that the Mail didn't go the whole hog and refer to 'secret documents', and leaks.

Hope they never see the engineering access statements, or they could be ranting about engineering work two years before it happened as well...

 

[Olaf]

The fact that the article concerned a Route Study was pointed out on the first page of this thread, ...

Yes, sorry, I saw that after I had posted.

I'm guessing that they do not have much direct experience of the railways, and have to read the Times to find out about it; Engineering reports would just frazzle their minds.