On some lines could double deckers be cheaper than platform extensions

[northwichcat]

On the Buxton line with the high gradient I think platform extensions would prove expensive. However, I think you can do Deansgate-Buxton by train without going under any road bridges. As some 4 car peak time services are now full and paths are limited north of Hazel Grove, could double decker trains be the answer? I'm sure Siemens already have double decker designs for DB which could be modified slightly for the UK network.

 

[Urban Gateline]

I quite agree, would love to see double-decker Class 455's working the SWT Hampton Court branch, scenic

 

[DarloRich]

no becuase they wont fit on most UK lines!

 

[gordonthemoron]

DB hasn't had any new double deckers for years

 

[tbtc]

You'd get a great view from "upstairs" on the Buxton line

 

[stanley T]

British teeny-weeny loading gauge versus Berne:roll: otherwise we would have had them years ago.

Could they run on lines cleared for big containers ? (W10).

 

[WatcherZero]

Its not even just their height, to make the loss of space for stairs worthwhile the carriages have to be longer too, which means platform alterations and track changes so their not clipping structures.

 

[LE Greys]

British teeny-weeny loading gauge versus Berne:roll: otherwise we would have had them years ago.

Could they run on lines cleared for big containers ? (W10).

Just. The double-deck units on the Paris RER are almost exactly the same size, provided they were trimmed a little bit at platform level and at the cantrails. The lower deck would be in a well, skimming along just above the ground, with presumably access over the bogies (thus extending station calls by a couple of minutes). The first route I would go for, as a test, would be Waterloo-Southampton, since half of that is already cleared for W10. Start expanding from there, but stick with 3rd rail lines for the moment. I don't like the idea of running something that size under wires.

 

[northwichcat]

no becuase they wont fit on most UK lines!

Well keep them on the lines they can fit on then - just like the Merseyrail EMUs don't venture out beyond the end of the third rail.

 

[starrymarkb]

Problem with putting passengers between the bogies - Our platforms! Unlike continental stock our loading gauge tapers inwards under the floor. Whereas Bern stock is straight to just above rail level!

 

[bnm]

So, a small, expensive, non standard build limited in use to one or two lines?

Just what benefits would that bring to the rail network? Note the word 'network'. The consensus these days is to build rolling stock that has as much route availability as possible.

That's to say nothing of how you get these double deck trains to the Buxton line. Can't use the rail network to get them there, so they'd have to be transported by road.

Bonkers idea.

 

[Lampshade]

They had trouble clearing 158s south of Hazel Grove because of the air conditioning units, never mind double deckers hock:

AFAIK, only Woodsmoor has a 'short' platform, all the others can take 2x156.

 

[northwichcat]

That's to say nothing of how you get these double deck trains to the Buxton line. Can't use the rail network to get them there, so they'd have to be transported by road. Bonkers idea.

So I take it you aren't aware of DMUs in the West Midlands being transported for maintenance by road, nor that EMUs have been sent between the West Midlands and Leeds via Crewe, Warrington, Preston, Edinburgh and York?

Depots at Ardwick, Longsight, Newton Heath and a future depot at Guide Bridge could all take the double decker trains for the Buxton line. The Buxton line is not the only line that could take double decker trains but the one that could most do with them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

AFAIK, only Woodsmoor has a 'short' platform, all the others can take 2x156.

I thought Woodsmoor can take 2x156s but the four times daily 180 call has to be via local door operation.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I don't really think that apart from the Buxton branch any other lines could take them without clearance works... Bit pointless if it would only benefit 25 miles of line IMHO
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Further, wouldn't the OHLE between Deansgate and Stockport cause trouble?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

On the Buxton line with the high gradient I think platform extensions would prove expensive. However, I think you can do Deansgate-Buxton by train without going under any road bridges.

What are the tunnel clearances on the Eaves Tunnel and the Barmoor Clough Tunnel that lie on this line in-between Chapel-en-le-Frith station and Dove Holes station?

 

[swt_passenger]

Just. The double-deck units on the Paris RER are almost exactly the same size, provided they were trimmed a little bit at platform level and at the cantrails. The lower deck would be in a well, skimming along just above the ground, with presumably access over the bogies (thus extending station calls by a couple of minutes). The first route I would go for, as a test, would be Waterloo-Southampton, since half of that is already cleared for W10. Start expanding from there, but stick with 3rd rail lines for the moment. I don't like the idea of running something that size under wires.

But W10 alone does not give enough useful clearance for double decker trains, we discussed this a few months ago and someone linked to the various gauge profile drawings. W10 is only about 3 inches higher than a C1 or C3 coach, the gauge clearance for W10 is all about the way the top corners of the boxes sways.

The DfT's report into double decker trains in the UK a few years ago included a specific comparison of Waterloo to Southampton, concluding that it isn't cost effective. Usable double decker trains cannot currently get past the approach viaducts into Victoria, cannot get through Wimbledon station because of the existing air rights development above, and cannot get through the Basingstoke Canal tunnels at Farnborough.

Estimated total costs for clearance to UIC GB gauge range between £500 million and £1.14 billion. UIC GC gauge range is between £610 million and £1.44 billion.

The well needed between the bogies to provide reasonable numbers of seats is not practical in 20m and 23m vehicles, 26m is the minimum lenght at which it becomes possible.

 

[northwichcat]

Further, wouldn't the OHLE between Deansgate and Stockport cause trouble?

The wires start earlier at Hazel Grove. I imagine it shouldn't be an issue if the double deckers are diesel and the exhaust is kept clear. The overhead electrics at level crossings show a 5m height clearance.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well keep them on the lines they can fit on then - just like the Merseyrail EMUs don't venture out beyond the end of the third rail.

I have just had a cross-thread thought...maybe the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce will now be considering these self-same coaches for their ludicrous project, if they don't get their way over obtaining redundant LU stock

 

[ileikcaek]

The well needed between the bogies to provide reasonable numbers of seats is not practical in 20m and 23m vehicles, 26m is the minimum lenght at which it becomes possible.

In Australia, the very nice and smart looking Sydney Cityrail M stock has 20.532 m (67 ft 4 in) long cars with a well. but width/height maybe a problem: Width 3.03 m (9 ft 11 in), Height 4.381 m (14 ft 4 in). I guess that spec may fit within some lines just about, if the width was reduced down to 2.80 m (9 ft 2 in)

 

[WestCoast]

DB hasn't had any new double deckers for years

They are still everywhere, certainly in the state of NRW! The newer coaching stock (late '90s delivered) is common in that area. Plus the new IC ones will be arriving in the coming years.

 

[Drsatan]

The DfT's report into double decker trains in the UK a few years ago included a specific comparison of Waterloo to Southampton, concluding that it isn't cost effective. Usable double decker trains cannot currently get past the approach viaducts into Victoria, cannot get through Wimbledon station because of the air rights above, and cannot get through the Basingstoke Canal tunnels at Farnborough.

I'm rather confused about the issue of air rights. Wouldn't the most immediate problem in trying to run double decker trains through Wimbledon be the big office block built on top of the running lines?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm rather confused about the issue of air rights. Wouldn't the most immediate problem in trying to run double decker trains through Wimbledon be the big office block built on top of the running lines?

That block is what I meant - an existing air rights development, previous post corrected now so thanks..

 

[Flying Snail]

It is one thing working out how much extra space you can gain by dropping the passenger cabin to the bottom of the well but where does the traction equipment go?

On electric units there shouldn't be much difficulty as modern electric traction and control equipment is a good deal smaller than earlier builds.

However for diesel units I cannot see how you can get away with reclaiming much space, particularly as even larger power units will be needed to move the extra bulk of a fully loaded DD unit. Unless that is you want to go the route of push-pull coaches and seperate locos similar to some of the suburban services in the US and Canada, not something I imagine would be popular in MU-centric Britain.

Is there really a huge obstacle to lengthening most platforms? I doubt most locations are that tight that it is impossible and as long as the high demand stations are done the option of SDO for a small number of smaller stations is an acceptable solution.


BTW there are 4 tunnels betwen Hazel Grove and Buxton, if just one needs re-building it would almost certainly be more costly than lengthening platforms on the entire branch.

 

[northwichcat]

It is one thing working out how much extra space you can gain by dropping the passenger cabin to the bottom of the well but where does the traction equipment go?

Maybe you put a loco on the front/end like DB do.

 

[Flying Snail]

Maybe you put a loco on the front/end like DB do.

So as well as a new build of DD coaches (not units) we now need a new build passenger diesel loco to haul them?

In a country where unused locos, coaches and driving trailers are rotting away in various locations. Stock that could have been quickly brought back into service to relieve a small number of targeted peak services thereby releasing a significant number of desperately needed DMUs across the network.

 

[Helvellyn]

It is one thing working out how much extra space you can gain by dropping the passenger cabin to the bottom of the well but where does the traction equipment go?

The Australians managed it! See the post a few above yours.

 

[Flying Snail]

The Australians managed it! See the post a few above yours.

Observation test: Is that or is it not a pantograph atop that unit? I am presuming then it does not contain a big ol' diesel guzzling lump. To be fair I clearly stated in my first post that it is a DMU issue not an EMU one.

If you can point to an existing unit that manages to squeeze in a double deck layout large enough to be beneficial AND a diesel powertrain then I will re-consider my opinion, at the moment however I do not believe that it can all be done in a unit that stands any chance of fitting into any UK loading guage without massive reconstruction work to lineside structures.

 

[northwichcat]

So as well as a new build of DD coaches (not units) we now need a new build passenger diesel loco to haul them?

If you look at a DB Regio DD you'll see it's effectively built as a multiple unit containing driving cabs but with a loco at one end so there's no need for the loco to be switched to the other end or for a DVT to be used.

However, as Hazel Grove to Manchester is electrified they could be dual-fuelled or the OHE could be extended. I think even in the latter, an emergency back-up diesel engine would be needed on the Buxton line, you don't want a power cut to be followed by a train rapidly running downhill - which is what they thought would happen if Pacers were on the line and an engine were to cut out.

 

[Lineside]

Our limited loading gauges simply won't allow for true full-height double decker trains as in countries like the Netherlands etc.... the cost of upgrading the infrastructure could be potentially prohibitive, I think.

 

[Flying Snail]

If you look at a DB Regio DD you'll see it's effectively built as a multiple unit containing driving cabs but with a loco at one end so there's no need for the loco to be switched to the other end or for a DVT to be used.

That is not a MU, it is a standalone loco hauling unpowered coaches with Push/pull capability.

I am not saying that this arrangement is bad but it would be an about turn on British railway policy since the 1980s of abandoning loco hauled passenger trains for MUs.

There is also the small issue of no current design of desel loco available for the GB market that is suitable for passenger use. The costs of a new design or adaptation of a continental design for a small niche fleet would be too high.

However, as Hazel Grove to Manchester is electrified they could be dual-fuelled or the OHE could be extended.

How would any of this be a better solution to the relatively straightforward solution of some platform lengthenings? In a fantasy situation where you had infinite resources to play with maybe but in reality there is no chance of an outlandishly expensive solution being chosen over a duller but more cost-effective one.

Very high capacity electrified routes that have already reached the limits of traditional capacity enhancements are the only places where extreme solutions such as altering the loading guage to fit double-deckers are ever going to be seriously considered.

I think even in the latter, an emergency back-up diesel engine would be needed on the Buxton line, you don't want a power cut to be followed by a train rapidly running downhill - which is what they thought would happen if Pacers were on the line and an engine were to cut out.

Why would a failed engine on a pacer (or a power cut on an electric line) lead to it running down a hill out of control? That is what brakes and their associated failsafe systems are designed to deal with. If that were a realistic scenario pacers and electric trains would be a complete danger anywhere with gradients, they are not.

The restriction on the Buxton line is there because certain low powered units would be unable to maintain the running times under normal circumstances and may be unable to climb some of the gradients in the case of a partial failure. A pacer on one engine may well stall but it wouldn't suddenly roll away out of control.