Inter-unit gangways why or why-not ?

[jammmmmsssssss]

Moderator note - split from:

Transport for Wales Class 231 / 756 Stadler FLIRTs

Evening all, Came across this on Twitter this morning from Transport for Wales: you shouldn't need a Twitter login to read the post and the article. https://twitter.com/transport_wales/status/1419587294269296640 HTIOI, Dave

www.railforums.co.uk

Given the lack of unit end gangway connections I would say multiple working for TfWs Stadler Flirts is not something TfW planned for. However that is not to say multiple working will not be inevitable !.

Greater Anglia have no unit end gangway connections on their 720s and they definitely planned for multiple working

 

[AdamWW]

Greater Anglia have no unit end gangway connections on their 720s and they definitely planned for multiple working

And indeed gangway connections on units intended for multiple working are now something an the exception rather than the norm in the UK.

(And even more so outside the UK!)

 

[stevieinselby]

And indeed gangway connections on units intended for multiple working are now something an the exception rather than the norm in the UK.

(And even more so outside the UK!)

We seem to go in cycles, especially with diesel units. A new platform comes along without gangway connections and a few iterations later gangway connections are added, then some years down the line a new platform comes along and we make the same mistakes all over again.

Sprinter: 150/1, no gangways - 150/2, 155, 156, 158, 159, all gangways
Turbostar: 168, 170, 171, 172/1, no gangways - 172/2, gangways
Civity: 195, no gangways - 196, 197, gangways

I wouldn't say gangways are "the exception" ... not when they are fitted to all 150/2, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 172/2, 196, 197, 350, 375, 377, 379, 380, 385, 387, 444, 450, 455, 458, 730.
By contrast, trains without gangways (not counting aerodynamic high speed trains) that work in multiple are 150/1, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 172/1, 185, 195, 318, 319, 320, 323, 331, 333, 334, 357, 360, 376, 378, 465, 466, 707, 720, 755, 777.
Apologies if I've missed any, but that should cover most trains in service now!

 

[ac6000cw]

We seem to go in cycles, especially with diesel units. A new platform comes along without gangway connections and a few iterations later gangway connections are added, then some years down the line a new platform comes along and we make the same mistakes all over again.

Sprinter: 150/1, no gangways - 150/2, 155, 156, 158, 159, all gangways
Turbostar: 168, 170, 171, 172/1, no gangways - 172/2, gangways
Civity: 195, no gangways - 196, 197, gangways

I wouldn't say gangways are "the exception" ... not when they are fitted to all 150/2, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 172/2, 196, 197, 350, 375, 377, 379, 380, 385, 387, 444, 450, 455, 458, 730.
By contrast, trains without gangways (not counting aerodynamic high speed trains) that work in multiple are 150/1, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 172/1, 185, 195, 318, 319, 320, 323, 331, 333, 334, 357, 360, 376, 378, 465, 466, 707, 720, 755, 777.
Apologies if I've missed any, but that should cover most trains in service now!

Why was buying trains without inter-unit gangways a 'mistake'? It's just a choice that probably involved many meetings weighing up extra costs (and more cramped cabs) versus possible benefits before placing orders...

To go back a bit further in history, very few BR Mk 1 DMUs or DEMUs had inter-unit gangways (and some didn't have inter-car gangways either as originally built), neither did the early AC EMUs e.g. cl. 302 to 312, nor most of the 'suburban' 3rd-rail EMUs.

 

[Carlisle]

To go back a bit further in history, very few BR Mk 1 DMUs or DEMUs had inter-unit gangways (and some didn't have inter-car gangways either as originally built), neither did the early AC EMUs e.g. cl. 302 to 312, nor most of the 'suburban' 3rd-rail EMUs.

309s did have gangways .

 

[stevieinselby]

Why was buying trains without inter-unit gangways a 'mistake'? It's just a choice that probably involved many meetings weighing up extra costs (and more cramped cabs) versus possible benefits before placing orders...

To go back a bit further in history, very few BR Mk 1 DMUs or DEMUs had inter-unit gangways (and some didn't have inter-car gangways either as originally built), neither did the early AC EMUs e.g. cl. 302 to 312, nor most of the 'suburban' 3rd-rail EMUs.

In my view, yes it was a mistake to build trains that could reasonably have been foreseen to run in multiple without gangway connections. While I realise there are pros and cons, I would say the benefits of passengers and crew being able to walk through from one part of the train to another do outweigh the additional costs and challenges. The fact that it wasn't done in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing it now.

 

[AdamWW]

I wouldn't say gangways are "the exception" ... not when they are fitted to all 150/2, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 172/2, 196, 197, 350, 375, 377, 379, 380, 385, 387, 444, 450, 455, 458, 730.
By contrast, trains without gangways (not counting aerodynamic high speed trains) that work in multiple are 150/1, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 172/1, 185, 195, 318, 319, 320, 323, 331, 333, 334, 357, 360, 376, 378, 465, 466, 707, 720, 755, 777.
Apologies if I've missed any, but that should cover most trains in service now!

I was thinking of current procurement which is what the discussion was originally about.

Maybe I'm wrong but I had the impression that (perhaps excluding the South East) it's rare these days for new units to have gangways.

 

[Peter Sarf]

To put this thread out of its misery (off topic) :-
I was contrasting the lack of inter unit gangway connections on TfWs Flirts (231s & 756s) vs TfWs 197s which do have inter-unit gangway connections.
If TfW specified and got them on 197s but not on Flirts it suggests to me TfW did not think it a high enough priority on the Flirts (I suggest because 231s & 756s are not expected to work in multiple).
I was not looking at the wider UK, just TfW - the same customer for 197s, 231s & 756s.

 

[AdamWW]

To put this thread out of its misery (off topic) :-
I was contrasting the lack of inter unit gangway connections on TfWs Flirts (231s & 756s) vs TfWs 197s which do have inter-unit gangway connections.
If TfW specified and got them on 197s but not on Flirts it suggests to me TfW did not think it a high enough priority on the Flirts (I suggest because 231s & 756s are not expected to work in multiple).

On the other hand, if we stick to the Valleys we have the 398s which lack gangway connections and I'm pretty sure are planned to run in multiple.

I expect Stadler could offer an end gangway version of a FLIRT if somone was prepared to pay for it. But I don't think it's been done before so I suspect it wouldn't come cheap.

I really don't think the presence or lack of end gangways is a good indicator as to whether multiple working was envisaged.

 

[tfw756rider]

I really don't think the presence or lack of end gangways is a good indicator as to whether multiple working was envisaged.

Exactly! (as much as @Peter Sarf and I are good)

(tfw756rider's 756th post, in the 756 thread of course)

Edit: Thread since split.

 

[ac6000cw]

309s did have gangways .

I know, and I meant to exclude that from the list

I expect Stadler could offer an end gangway version of a FLIRT if someone was prepared to pay for it. But I don't think it's been done before so I suspect it wouldn't come cheap.

I agree (e.g. the inner ends of the 745 half-sets - which are basically a cabless version of the outer ends - are gangwayed), but I think it would need a completely redesigned internal cab layout at the very least.

I really don't think the presence or lack of end gangways is a good indicator as to whether multiple working was envisaged.

It isn't.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Greater Anglia have no unit end gangway connections on their 720s and they definitely planned for multiple working

Although didn't they order some 10-car units at first, meaning use of the 5-car units in multiple would have been relatively limited, but later put in a variation for the 10-car units to be replaced by twice as many 5-car ones?

We seem to go in cycles, especially with diesel units. A new platform comes along without gangway connections and a few iterations later gangway connections are added, then some years down the line a new platform comes along and we make the same mistakes all over again.

Sprinter: 150/1, no gangways - 150/2, 155, 156, 158, 159, all gangways
Turbostar: 168, 170, 171, 172/1, no gangways - 172/2, gangways
Civity: 195, no gangways - 196, 197, gangways

I wouldn't say gangways are "the exception" ... not when they are fitted to all 150/2, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 172/2, 196, 197, 350, 375, 377, 379, 380, 385, 387, 444, 450, 455, 458, 730.
By contrast, trains without gangways (not counting aerodynamic high speed trains) that work in multiple are 150/1, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 172/1, 185, 195, 318, 319, 320, 323, 331, 333, 334, 357, 360, 376, 378, 465, 466, 707, 720, 755, 777.
Apologies if I've missed any, but that should cover most trains in service now!

I seem to recall a previous discussion which said that BR (or part of it, such as Network South East) had a policy (due to budget constraints) around the time the class 455s were ordered which said new-build units would be fitted with either a toilet or end-gangways but not both. I'm guessing that only applied to suburban units like the 455s and not stock for longer-distance services, but can't remember the details.

Why was buying trains without inter-unit gangways a 'mistake'? It's just a choice that probably involved many meetings weighing up extra costs (and more cramped cabs) versus possible benefits before placing orders...

In my view, yes it was a mistake to build trains that could reasonably have been foreseen to run in multiple without gangway connections. While I realise there are pros and cons, I would say the benefits of passengers and crew being able to walk through from one part of the train to another do outweigh the additional costs and challenges. The fact that it wasn't done in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing it now.

I'm with stevieinselby here - we should be aiming to provide gangways throughout the length of the train. This means all new-build stock should either have UEGs (unit-end-gangways) or be too long to run in multiple (such as the class 700s). This means most of the 22x and 80x units are too short - most 800s/802s should be lengthened to 8 or 9 cars. A minimum of 7 coaches (7x23 = 161m which is about the same as an 8-car class 700 which would be 320m if run in multiple and unlikely to fit on (m)any non-HS1/HS2 platforms) should be enforced for all orders of new 'aerodynamic high speed trains' that cannot have UEGs (if a route is busy enough to justify the cost of maintaining it for speeds in excess of 110mph there should be much need for shorter 'aerodynamic high speed trains' anyway).

On the other hand, if we stick to the Valleys we have the 398s which lack gangway connections and I'm pretty sure are planned to run in multiple.

I expect Stadler could offer an end gangway version of a FLIRT if somone was prepared to pay for it. But I don't think it's been done before so I suspect it wouldn't come cheap.

I really don't think the presence or lack of end gangways is a good indicator as to whether multiple working was envisaged.

I agree; the lack of UEGs doesn't appear to be a good indication of whether multiple working was planned at the time of ordering. In my opinion it should be; but sadly those responsible for ordering new trains often don't seem to give sufficient priority to this issue.

As for a gangwayed FLIRT, does the FLIRT UK platform share much with the Stadler Metro (class 777 and class 555)? If so, they already have the emergency exit doors on the 777s (and Glasgow Subway stock) which suggests the design should be capable of modification to allow gangwayed cabs.

 

[Class73Electro]

Also, you have the Shakespeare Tunnel in Dover. I don't know the exact rules, but I remember the Hastings Diesel 1001 had to get exemption I believe to run through it because it didn't have forward entry/exit points. I think this is because of the narrowness of the tunnels?

Not sure how the Javelins have got round this, unless I am mistaken somewhere (entirely possible!)

 

[hexagon789]

Also, you have the Shakespeare Tunnel in Dover. I don't know the exact rules, but I remember the Hastings Diesel 1001 had to get exemption I believe to run through it because it didn't have forward entry/exit points. I think this is because of the narrowness of the tunnels?

Not sure how the Javelins have got round this, unless I am mistaken somewhere (entirely possible!)

Possibly because the Thumper has outward opening manual doors; the Javelin has pocket sliding doors.

The proximity to the tunnel wall may hamper opening the doors on the Thumper?

 

[Class73Electro]

Possibly because the Thumper has outward opening manual doors; the Javelin has pocket sliding doors.

The proximity to the tunnel wall may hamper opening the doors on the Thumper?

Could be - makes sense.

Do Javelins do multiple workings to Dover from Ashford? Sure I've always seen them split

 

[43096]

Although didn't they order some 10-car units at first, meaning use of the 5-car units in multiple would have been relatively limited, but later put in a variation for the 10-car units to be replaced by twice as many 5-car ones?

Yes, but the original order was 22 x 10-car and 89 x 5-car. There would still have been plenty of 5-cars running in multiple.

 

[RailWonderer]

Maybe I'm wrong but I had the impression that (perhaps excluding the South East) it's rare these days for new units to have gangways.

Scotrail's 385s have them as do the WMR 196s and TfW 197s so I wouldn't rule out future units. On the GE we haven't had them in decades apart from one daily 317 working many years ago, and when a train pulls in you just see where there are seats then move to the front or rear train before you board. A gangway in between trains is a nice to have but not essential, Europeans cope well without it.

 

[Tester]

Could be - makes sense.

Do Javelins do multiple workings to Dover from Ashford? Sure I've always seen them split

My understanding is that multiple working of Javelins is specifically not permitted through Shakespeare Tunnel.

 

[MarkyT]

Also, you have the Shakespeare Tunnel in Dover. I don't know the exact rules, but I remember the Hastings Diesel 1001 had to get exemption I believe to run through it because it didn't have forward entry/exit points. I think this is because of the narrowness of the tunnels?

As there is a separate bore for each track.

Not sure how the Javelins have got round this, unless I am mistaken somewhere (entirely possible!)

I believe they may have moved the track a little to one side of each bore to create more space for evacuees to get down to track level on the other. That was certainly suggested at least when proposals were being developed, and implies the bores are not particularly constrained.

Possibly because the Thumper has outward opening manual doors; the Javelin has pocket sliding doors.
The proximity to the tunnel wall may hamper opening the doors on the Thumper?

I think that's correct. The swinging exterior doors might not be able to open fully, hampering evacuation.

My understanding is that multiple working of Javelins is specifically not permitted through Shakespeare Tunnel.

Maybe that's to limit the maximum number of passengers that might be involved in an evacuation, or because there might not be a staff member present in one unit of a twin set to direct and oversee the evacuation.

 

[jammmmmsssssss]

Although didn't they order some 10-car units at first, meaning use of the 5-car units in multiple would have been relatively limited, but later put in a variation for the 10-car units to be replaced by twice as many 5-car ones?

They were going to have 89 5 car units anyway

 

[Rhydgaled]

They were going to have 89 5 car units anyway

Yes, and I'd rather they has been ordered with UEGs anyway; but presumably the idea was that the 10-car units would have been deployed where 10-car services were required with the 5-car units generally running alone and only being run in multiple on a few services or if they needed to cover for a shortage of servicable 10-car sets on a given day?

A gangway in between trains is a nice to have but not essential

It's more important in some suituations than others. For example, if a pair of 720s are coupled together all day and all platforms served are long enough for all 10 coaches it's not a big issue for passengers unless the universally Accessible Toilet fails on one of the units (although, even then, are aisles and gangways wide enough for wheelchairs anyway?) Given that the TfW class 398s don't have toilets at all, the lack of gangways is even less of an issue there provided the platforms are long enough and units remain coupled all day. In such cases, the only issues are staff access between units (eg. ticket checks, passenger assistance (PRM call-for-aid alarms) and, if applicable, catering trolleys) and uneven passenger loadings. The Manchester Metrolink provided me with clear examples of the latter during my year of employment in that region. I would often go out exploring the network at the weekends, but getting a seat on the Metrolink trams was often difficult except on the rare occasions that a double-tram turnned up (for most of the year, only the old T68(?) trams were able to run in multiple). In such cases, most passengers would try to board the front tram, leaving the rear unit almost empty.

The lack of UEGs on 'aerodynamic high speed trains' is a bigger issue, since there is considerably more 'wasted space' by having two sets of cabs and kitchen/buffet facilities. This adds to running costs for no extra benefit; for example if I recall correctly the IEP spec had the 5-car class 800 units as having 315 seats and the 9-car units with 627 seats. That means a pair of 5-car class 800s running as a 10-car train would have 630 seats; only three more seats than a single 9-car set. Since the class 800s have 26 metre vehicles, that effectively means 26 metres (a whole carriage worth of space) is wasted on a second set of cabs and an extra kitchen/buffet, and platforms need to be 26 metres longer if you want to fully-platform the 10-car train.

Which brings us back to short platforms. If you don't fully-platform a train then you run the risk of passengers effectively being forced to ‘change trains’ (ie. get off onto a platform to move to a different (part of the) train) when they expected a through service. The same is true if a train splits in service, and could result in a passenger ‘missing the train’. For example, a 5-car Portsmouth to Cardiff service that splits at Bristol Temple Meads with three coaches proceeding to Cardiff. If the stock had UEGs, the guard could tell a passenger for Cardiff to move through to the correct part of the train to do so. However, without UEGs the passenger is forced to get off and move to the other unit; if the train is despatched before the passenger makes it onto the other train they are left having to wait at least half an hour for the next train to Cardiff. That is a fairly significant delay and therefore a negative experience for the unfortunate passenger; so might result in them deciding to avoid rail travel in future.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Essentially unless both units have gangways then essentially there is a guard for one unit but not the other.

Why do we need guards to check tickets, it's much better to have no gangway so that fare evaders can easily evade guards!