My idea for double deck trains on the West Coast Main Line

[anme]

And a ramp for wheelchair access ...

We don't need to provide wheelchair access to the top deck. Wheelchair users get priority for the lower deck.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There would be a second platform stacked on top of the current one, with PEDs it's not that ridiculous.

UK1 gauge with Talgo vehicles might allow more width, but there is simply not the headroom for a double deck train.
You need at least 4m above rail for a reasonable double deck train.
Which we simply don't have.

A RIC standard single deck coach is just over 4m high. Double deckers are typically a bit higher, probably about 4.5. That makes all the difference.

 

[anme]

A RIC standard single deck coach is just over 4m high. Double deckers are typically a bit higher, probably about 4.5. That makes all the difference.

Both these designs are incredibly wasteful of space.

BTW, has anyone considered a sleeper train design based on a Japanese capsule hotel?

 

[quantinghome]

I'm not sure how double decker platforms would work.

Well that's because you're so constrained by thinking in terms of today's railway.
In fact, now I come to think of it we'd just need trampolines every few metres along the platform. That should do it.

 

[anme]

Well that's because you're so constrained by thinking in terms of today's railway.

Yes that's absolutely true. This is why we need to get a new generation of designers involved.

In fact, now I come to think of it we'd just need trampolines every few metres along the platform. That should do it.

Now you're just being silly.

 

[HSTEd]

A RIC standard single deck coach is just over 4m high. Double deckers are typically a bit higher, probably about 4.5. That makes all the difference.

TGV Duplex is only 4.32m high, and with Talgo type tech you can probably push it a bit lower.

But the Talgo 22 never went beyond an unpowered trailer prototype.

 

[krus_aragon]

We need to let modern designers work on this, and not be consTRAINed by old railway thinking. For a start, is the design with doors at the end of the carriage optimal? It wastes a lot of space with vestibules and corridors. We could put a set of doors at the side of the train for each row of seats, and run the rows the full width of the train. Then we don't need vestibules and corridors at all! Space would be much more efficiently used, and as a bonus loading and unloading times would be much quicker (important for commuter routes). I know you're going to ask how people will access the buffet car - well, that would be more difficult, of course. But people can simply bring their own sandwiches and coffee. Most stations have shops these days.

What you describe is remarkably like the 4DD units built in the post-war era.

The last in-depth evaluation that I'm aware of was done by Network Rail for the DfT in 2007. It's written in the context of evaluating whether further train lengthening or double deck carriages would be a solution to passenger number growth on routes into London. If you aren't familiar with it, I suggest finding the time to have a good browse.

The document includes some initial designs for potential new UK double-deck rolling stock, and on page 43 lists estimates for the infrastructure costs required to clear various (AC and DC) routes into London for such stock. Prices range from £580m-960m for Liverpool St to Colchester and Ipswich, up to £800m to £1720m for Paddington to Reading and Oxford, depending on the size of rolling stock used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What you describe is remarkably like the 4DD units built in the post-war era.

Which were an abject failure even in the days when the disadvantages of regular compartment stock were accepted.

 

[anme]

What you describe is remarkably like the 4DD units built in the post-war era.

The last in-depth evaluation that I'm aware of was done by Network Rail for the DfT in 2007. It's written in the context of evaluating whether further train lengthening or double deck carriages would be a solution to passenger number growth on routes into London. If you aren't familiar with it, I suggest finding the time to have a good browse.

The document includes some initial designs for potential new UK double-deck rolling stock, and on page 43 lists estimates for the infrastructure costs required to clear various (AC and DC) routes into London for such stock. Prices range from £580m-960m for Liverpool St to Colchester and Ipswich, up to £800m to £1720m for Paddington to Reading and Oxford, depending on the size of rolling stock used.

This study was a farce. It spends a lot of time talking about doors and staircases but doesn't consider at all that we don't need staircases (or corridors and vestibules) at all if we have doors for every row of seats - as used to be the case on commuter trains!

It also assumes we need full height decks, when in fact without corridors, no-one will ever need to stand up, so deck height can be similar to a car. So we simply don't need anything beyond the current infrastructure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

without corridors, no-one will ever need to stand up

Excuse me while I have hysterics. You're going compulsory reservation/no standing, then. Congratulations on having reduced capacity by a far greater margin than you gained by going double deck.

 

[anme]

Excuse me while I have hysterics. You're going compulsory reservation/no standing, then. Congratulations on having reduced capacity by a far greater margin than you gained by going double deck.

Why are compulsory reservations necessary? Old-fashioned commuter trains with a door for every row of seats didn't need compulsory reservations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why are compulsory reservations necessary? Old-fashioned commuter trains with a door for every row of seats didn't need compulsory reservations.

You could stand on commuter stock between the seats, because they, unlike you, hadn't reduced the ceiling height to about 4'.

For standing, you need a ceiling height of at least about 6' 3" (as per Class 158 vestibule).

 

[PartyOperator]

Why have seats at all? If people just squat on the floor there will be even more space and it will be possible to shimmy into any corner of the space from anywhere else. Livestock carriers get four stories into a standard lorry!

 

[anme]

You could stand on commuter stock between the seats, because they, unlike you, hadn't reduced the ceiling height to about 4'.

For standing, you need a ceiling height of at least about 6' 3" (as per Class 158 vestibule).

With this plan we are MORE THAN DOUBLING capacity by having two decks, and no corridors or vestibules. We simply don't need anyone to stand.

In the hypothetical event that someone can't board, they just wait for the next train.

 

[anme]

Why have seats at all? If people just squat on the floor there will be even more space and it will be possible to shimmy into any corner of the space from anywhere else. Livestock carriers get four stories into a standard lorry!

Don't be ridiculous. People want to sit. That's why it's important to get as many seats on to our WCML trains as possible by having two decks and getting rid of corridors and vestibules.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With this plan we are MORE THAN DOUBLING capacity by having two decks, and no corridors or vestibules. We simply don't need anyone to stand.

In the hypothetical event that someone can't board, they just wait for the next train.

So, compulsory reservations, then, and with that you have reduced capacity.

Do you ever travel on the south WCML? Clearly not, as you have no idea how busy it is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't be ridiculous. People want to sit. That's why it's important to get as many seats on to our WCML trains as possible by having two decks and getting rid of corridors and vestibules.

You are in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Indigo Soup]

This is why we need to get a new generation of designers involved.

New generations of designers tend to put more emphasis on human factors than older generations, not the other way around. Although I'll admit that your proposals would have the effect of making lots of room on WCML services by making them so awful that would-be passengers drive, fly or take the bus instead.

We could of course further optimise capacity by sedating passengers on arrival at the station and having staff neatly stack them inside closed vans. That would not, however, be terribly sensible.

 

[anme]

So, compulsory reservations, then, and with that you have reduced capacity.

Do you ever travel on the south WCML? Clearly not, as you have no idea how busy it is.

Yes I do. I recently travelled on an intercity train leaving Euston at around 17:00 on a weekday. The train was pleasantly quiet. I had two seats to myself, as did most other people. But apparently we need more capacity! So let's try to provide it as cheaply as possible and without disturbing the good people of the Chilterns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes I do. I recently travelled on an intercity train leaving Euston at around 17:00 on a weekday. The train was pleasantly quiet. I had two seats to myself, as did most other people.

That's because of VT's outrageous Anytime fares. Try just after the peak...

 

[anme]

New generations of designers tend to put more emphasis on human factors than older generations, not the other way around.

I am saying the same thing. Let's actually look at the human factors - i.e. the shape of the human body. Even when one of today's WCML trains is allegedly "full", there is in fact lots of space free because we use it so inefficiently.

As a thought experiment, try the following. Imagine a "full" railway carriage of a current design. Now, fill the remaining space with water, and remove it (very quickly, so no-one is hurt!). Measure the volume of that water. That volume is the space that a more efficient design can use to carry more people.

Until we make use of that space, I see no reason to build any expensive new railway lines.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

New generations of designers tend to put more emphasis on human factors than older generations, not the other way around. Although I'll admit that your proposals would have the effect of making lots of room on WCML services by making them so awful that would-be passengers drive, fly or take the bus instead.

We could of course further optimise capacity by sedating passengers on arrival at the station and having staff neatly stack them inside closed vans. That would not, however, be terribly sensible.

I have just spent the last few minutes reading though some of these proposals, I can only assume the people advocating them are 3ft tall. Not that I travel on the WCML but the thought of having to stoop down to get on or off the train or to move about to go to the toilet would cartainly fee up a lot of capacity, would want to drive on the M6 though when everyone switches to cars.

 

[krus_aragon]

This study was a farce. It spends a lot of time talking about doors and staircases but doesn't consider at all that we don't need staircases (or corridors and vestibules) at all if we have doors for every row of seats - as used to be the case on commuter trains!

It also assumes we need full height decks, when in fact without corridors, no-one will ever need to stand up, so deck height can be similar to a car. So we simply don't need anything beyond the current infrastructure.

I look forward to the next study, then, and hope it will be less farcical. Are you involved in it?

 

[anme]

I look forward to the next study, then, and hope it will be less farcical. Are you involved in it?

The DfT read this forum and I am expecting an invitation shortly.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Well I am 6ft2 and am wondering if I was in a seat near the middle of your double decker stock on a journey from London to Birmingham and needed to go to the toilet how I would get there. Crawling on my hands and knees presumably.