Once HS2 phase 2b has opened, should dedicated double decker stock be built?

[Bletchleyite]

Then the capacity argument for HS2 simply falls apart.

Well, it doesn't, because the capacity argument has nothing to do with seats. It's about line capacity, i.e. removing 8 of the 9 fast Avanti trains per hour from the south WCML so they can be replaced with services that more provide for local journeys, both commuter and connecting Northampton, MK, Watford and Rugby to WCML destinations, taking into account that MK will have a larger population than Bristol in 20 or so years' time.

There is no shortage of seats on the Manchester or Birmingham services at present. Simply near-doubling the length of the trains (260-something metres to 400) will, in the same sort of layout, provide more capacity than will ever likely be needed when coupled with technology developments reducing the need for business travel.

FWIW by "premium product" I don't mean the minimum fare Manchester-London will be 800 quid. TGV and ICE fares are typically rather lower than our Anytime long distance fares are. What I mean is that other than at quiet times when cheap fares may be needed to fill seats on the basis that getting £10 is better than getting £0, it won't be "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" with crammed-in interiors like the likes of Ryanair, it simply is not necessary to do that. That market will be on road coaches (no doubt electric by then), and possibly on the conventional services.

I also have to question why vast amounts of public money are being bled away propping up this project when its apparently only for the wealthy elite.

The line capacity freed up around London, the Home Counties and Manchester for additional local services which will be used by people on all levels of income are the gain. 10 minutes off a journey to Brum (or whatever it is) is nothing but a happy coincidence, and just doesn't really feature in terms of the important reasons for the project. Indeed, if that was what it was for I'd strongly oppose it.

I'd refer you to my M6 Toll point - the beneficiaries of the M6 Toll are not just people who will pay an extra fiver or so (or whatever it is these days, I forget) to take 10 minutes off their journey, people using the traditional M6 also benefit because congestion is reduced because not all the cars are trying to drive through Birmingham instead.

 

[quantinghome]

There is no shortage of seats on the Manchester or Birmingham services at present. Simply near-doubling the length of the trains (260-something metres to 400) will, in the same sort of layout, provide more capacity than will ever likely be needed when coupled with technology developments reducing the need for business travel.

FWIW by "premium product" I don't mean the minimum fare Manchester-London will be 800 quid. TGV and ICE fares are typically rather lower than our Anytime long distance fares are. What I mean is that other than at quiet times when cheap fares may be needed to fill seats on the basis that getting £10 is better than getting £0, it won't be "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" with crammed-in interiors like the likes of Ryanair, it simply is not necessary to do that. That market will be on road coaches (no doubt electric by then), and possibly on the conventional services.

The line capacity freed up around London, the Home Counties and Manchester for additional local services which will be used by people on all levels of income are the gain. 10 minutes off a journey to Brum (or whatever it is) is nothing but a happy coincidence, and just doesn't really feature in terms of the important reasons for the project. Indeed, if that was what it was for I'd strongly oppose it.

I'd refer you to my M6 Toll point - the beneficiaries of the M6 Toll are not just people who will pay an extra fiver or so (or whatever it is these days, I forget) to take 10 minutes off their journey, people using the traditional M6 also benefit because congestion is reduced because not all the cars are trying to drive through Birmingham instead.

The WCML upgrade tripled seats on the Manchester services, at a time when technology developments could have reduced the need for business travel, but somehow didn't. When in the last 200 years has improved communications technology resulted in a reduction in travel demand?

Of course HS2 trains will be able to provide both premium and economy fares by offering different classes on the train so we can apply both marketing strategies. Maybe you're right and we'll never need double deck trains. History would suggest otherwise though.

The M6 toll is an important issue - as a premium product it's not as effective at reducing congestion on the M6 as it could be because it's underutilised. If you reduced or eliminated tolls it would have a much more beneficial effect on the M6.

 

[Bigman]

Why not do what they do with the Airbus A380. First class upstairs, standard downstairs, and then have an additional mezzanine level platform upstairs, so that you can board/disembark on both levels at the same time. Would cut down on dwell time. Right, back to my Beano now.

 

[quantinghome]

Why not do what they do with the Airbus A380. First class upstairs, standard downstairs, and then have an additional mezzanine level platform upstairs, so that you can board/disembark on both levels at the same time. Would cut down on dwell time. Right, back to my Beano now.

Bad idea for everyone but chiropractors I feel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The WCML upgrade tripled seats on the Manchester services, at a time when technology developments could have reduced the need for business travel, but somehow didn't.

I don't think that's actually true. The VHF timetable came in in 2008, which was 12 years ago, and a time when online collaboration hadn't progressed all that far between dial-in teleconferences and M$ Netmeeting. What was also the case was that there was still a feeling that employees couldn't be trusted to work from home, and contractors couldn't be trusted to be off-site. The IT industry in my observation started the shift away from those things about 2013 or so, and COVID has given a massive kick up the backside to other industries by proving such work to be entirely feasible in many cases. And families are chatting on Zoom and the likes, so teleconferencing has moved from being solely a business tool to being one of leisure too.

That doesn't mean people won't travel, but it does mean I suspect the growth will be stemmed.

But even if it isn't, when you've got a near-doubling of capacity on the background of trains that presently carry a fair bit of fresh air, they aren't going to be full any time in the following 30 years or so. So the second generation of HS2 trains might need to be double-deck, but definitely not this generation.

When in the last 200 years has improved communications technology resulted in a reduction in travel demand?

When you want to buy something, do you always travel to a shop to do so, or do you sometimes order online? Each time you do, that's a journey not taken.

Of course HS2 trains will be able to provide both premium and economy fares by offering different classes on the train so we can apply both marketing strategies.

To a point. In other words, even if HS2 has three classes a la Trenitalia's Le Frecce, the bottom one won't be Ryanair-esque, it'll be standard, business and first. The real budget travel market will continue to use road coaches, or will string together CDRs and use the local services.

I'm not saying all HS2 fares will be as high as Avanti's Anytimes, far from it (I think that that pricing model is likely dead, even before HS2 turns its first revenue wheel). But what it won't be is pack 'em in, pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap. That that model isn't used for HSR anywhere in the world I can think of (I reiterate that a couple of trains a day open access doesn't count) would suggest it won't be here, either.

Maybe you're right and we'll never need double deck trains. History would suggest otherwise though.

I don't agree.

The M6 toll is an important issue - as a premium product it's not as effective at reducing congestion on the M6 as it could be because it's underutilised. If you reduced or eliminated tolls it would have a much more beneficial effect on the M6.

However, the tolls help fund it. So the M6 Toll as it is was the best value way of solving the problem. Though I do wonder if they should yield manage based on how busy it is - the signs could show the current price (reading your number plate to know that's the price you were shown) and you decide whether to accept it or not by turning left or right.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2021 ==

Why not do what they do with the Airbus A380. First class upstairs, standard downstairs, and then have an additional mezzanine level platform upstairs, so that you can board/disembark on both levels at the same time. Would cut down on dwell time. Right, back to my Beano now.

I do have concerns, knowing British people and what happens at Manchester Piccadilly P13/14, about the Old Oak operational concept, to the point I'm concerned it may be fatally flawed, and being pushed as it is purely to get better headline journey times to back up what was the wrong selling point for the line (it should have been called the WCML Capacity Enhancement Project - not as sexy but more explanatory). I would predict that it will fail in a LNR-Liverpool-service-style mess, with either some Old Oak stops removed or the service slowed down by a few minutes to allow longer dwells there to make it work. However, that's one for another thread.

 

[Loki]

TGV double deckers are built to GB+.
HS2 is GC:

Platform height is not a problem for double decker trains. In fact, in a sense, it's better as you can position the doors above the bogies creating more space for seats on the lower deck.

 

[XAM2175]

Platform height is not a problem for double decker trains. In fact, in a sense, it's better as you can position the doors above the bogies creating more space for seats on the lower deck.

Which comes back to my earlier post - this means every saloon area has stairs between it and the adjoining vestibules, meaning persons with reduced mobility have to be accommodated in the vestibules or given special saloons at the intermediate level, and walking along the length of the train requires going up and down all the stairs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which comes back to my earlier post - this means every saloon area has stairs between it and the adjoining vestibules, meaning persons with reduced mobility have to be accommodated in the vestibules or given special saloons at the intermediate level, and walking along the length of the train requires going up and down all the stairs.

It also further reduces the capacity, because your double-deck bit can only be the bit between the bogies, which isn't much more than half of the train length. So you make a cramped, uncomfortable, poorly-accessible train with restricted overhead luggage space on both decks (which for example is a right faff to push the drinks trolley along) purely to increase the seating capacity by maybe 20 or 30%.

I'm really not sold on it at all. I'm not at all sure, in UIC GC (3.15m wide), that I wouldn't rather see a 3+2-seated* cheapo class to increase capacity that way if it was needed.

* With 3.15m to play with rather than 2.82m, so about an extra foot, you could have 3+2 seating with full width seats with proper armrests. It wouldn't look like a 350/2, it'd look more like Chinese high speed rail.

 

[Loki]

It also further reduces the capacity, because your double-deck bit can only be the bit between the bogies

This increases capacity, not reduce it. The double deck bit is always between the bogies.

 

[XAM2175]

This increases capacity, not reduce it. The double deck bit is always between the bogies.

Yes, double-deck in the GC loading gauge does increase the total number of seats available in comparison to a single deck. With doors at the intermediate level though the negative effects on accessibility and amenity more than outweigh the benefits.

 

[quantinghome]

It also further reduces the capacity, because your double-deck bit can only be the bit between the bogies, which isn't much more than half of the train length. So you make a cramped, uncomfortable, poorly-accessible train with restricted overhead luggage space on both decks (which for example is a right faff to push the drinks trolley along) purely to increase the seating capacity by maybe 20 or 30%.

I'm really not sold on it at all. I'm not at all sure, in UIC GC (3.15m wide), that I wouldn't rather see a 3+2-seated* cheapo class to increase capacity that way if it was needed.

* With 3.15m to play with rather than 2.82m, so about an extra foot, you could have 3+2 seating with full width seats with proper armrests. It wouldn't look like a 350/2, it'd look more like Chinese high speed rail.

I don't agree. The Belgians manage it OK with doors above the bogies.

 

[HST43257]

If the infrastructure allows it, I’d be full of support for it. No need for 3tph to each of Birmingham/Leeds/Manchester. 2tph to each of them is more than enough with extra capacity.

 

[Energy]

For HS2? I don't think so, classic compatible will be difficult and HS2 is getting 400m (2*200m) long trains anyway.

For WCML, definitely no, the WCML post HS2 will be more for stopping services, a longer 395 type unit I think would work best, for better comfort or speed you would take HS2.

 

[XAM2175]

The Belgians manage it OK with doors above the bogies.

So do the Australians. Nobody's saying that doors over the bogies can't be done, just that it's a bad choice for an intercity train.

 

[BrianW]

Yes, double-deck in the GC loading gauge does increase the total number of seats available in comparison to a single deck. With doors at the intermediate level though the negative effects on accessibility and amenity more than outweigh the benefits.

Presumably someone somewhere gave some thought to the loading gauge to be provided (and hence boring machines etc) and whether trains would or might be double-deck and how folk might get on and off with or without luggage and disperse off a platform, etc etc before starting construction, and what this might mean for trains travelling onto the 'classic' railway?!!
Does no-one know what they are doing? Can nothing be learned from Australia or Belgium or anywhere else or 'existing? Just askin' ...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The tunnels are designed and constructed large enough to take double decker trains.

I have learned something today.

Tempted to say we should worry about getting 2b built first.

Exactly my thoughts.

Yep - mine too.

 

[XAM2175]

Presumably someone somewhere gave some thought to the loading gauge to be provided (and hence boring machines etc) and whether trains would or might be double-deck and how folk might get on and off with or without luggage and disperse off a platform, etc etc before starting construction, and what this might mean for trains travelling onto the 'classic' railway?!!
Does no-one know what they are doing? Can nothing be learned from Australia or Belgium or anywhere else or 'existing? Just askin' ...

What's your point? It's already established that HS2 will be built to the full "GC" loading gauge but that the initial trainsets purchased for it will be single-deck and compatible with the current 'classic' loading gauge so that they can operate services that extend off the HS2 core.

 

[BrianW]

What's your point? It's already established that HS2 will be built to the full "GC" loading gauge but that the initial trainsets purchased for it will be single-deck and compatible with the current 'classic' loading gauge so that they can operate services that extend off the HS2 core.

What's my point? The thread is under 'Speculative ideas'. I am suggesting the time to consider double-deck trains is way before construction starts. I'm an architect by background and not a railway operations person. I know that changes, including those intended to make 'savings', invariably cost money and cause delay. I had no idea, and am happy to be informed that the Great Central loading guage will take double-deck. My only 'experiences' of double deck are sur le continent and pictures of double-deck on the SR, which IIRC were compartment stock. Many, including me will not have known what is 'already established' (many come to a thread part-way through and/or as relative 'newbies'). I imagine that 'fitting' to existing infrastructure in addition to more sweeping easier alignments, longer platforms etc also provides more factors to consider in design. Seeing contributions about where doors might be, how wide, and how long to open/close it seems there is much yet undecided.

Tempted to say we should worry about getting 2b built first.

Another dumb question from me- why?

 

[Bletchleyite]

UIC GC is not "Great Central gauge", it is the larger of the UIC gauges (GA, GB and GC), larger than most French or German lines, and definitely can fit the likes of the TGV Duplex.

 

[BrianW]

UIC GC is not "Great Central gauge", it is the larger of the UIC gauges (GA, GB and GC), larger than most French or German lines, and definitely can fit the likes of the TGV Duplex.

I'm learning lots here- thank you for being gentle. Hope you will understand how I thought what GC meant!!

 

[quantinghome]

I have learned something today.

OK, now I'm doubting myself. Are the tunnels not designed to UIC GC gauge?

So do the Australians. Nobody's saying that doors over the bogies can't be done, just that it's a bad choice for an intercity train.

I don't see why it's a bad choice. The M6's are intercity carriages. They seem to work perfectly well from my experience, and seat 140 per carriage compared to 80 on the equivalent single deck. What's not to like?

 

[Bletchleyite]

OK, now I'm doubting myself. Are the tunnels not designed to UIC GC gauge?

Yes, they are.

I don't see why it's a bad choice. The M6's are intercity carriages. They seem to work perfectly well from my experience, and seat 140 per carriage compared to 80 on the equivalent single deck. What's not to like?

They won't be equivalent coaches. In a 26.4m UIC coach you get an uplift of maybe 20-30% at best. You only get that high when you make other changes to the double deck coach, i.e. cramming seats in tighter or skimping on luggage space, which as it's not available overhead means more floor-level racks. Perhaps not needed on commuter trains, but unlike basically the whole Belgian network (as it's so small) these aren't commuter trains.

 

[XAM2175]

I had no idea, and am happy to be informed that the Great Central loading guage will take double-deck. My only 'experiences' of double deck are sur le continent and pictures of double-deck on the SR, which IIRC were compartment stock. Many, including me will not have known what is 'already established' (many come to a thread part-way through and/or as relative 'newbies')

For my part I hadn't considered there could be confusion with the Great Central gauge, especially given there was an illustrated comparison of the British and UIC gauges in an earlier post and I prefer to read the entire thread before posting.

 

[quantinghome]

They won't be equivalent coaches. In a 26.4m UIC coach you get an uplift of maybe 20-30% at best. You only get that high when you make other changes to the double deck coach, i.e. cramming seats in tighter or skimping on luggage space, which as it's not available overhead means more floor-level racks. Perhaps not needed on commuter trains, but unlike basically the whole Belgian network (as it's so small) these aren't commuter trains.

Having travelled on the the Belgian IC double deckers I must say I've found them perfectly comfortable, and far from commuter trains, they are used for the main longer routes (Ostend to Liege is over 2 hours, hardly a 'commute', and significantly longer than the longest duration HS2 captive journey). There are lots of 2+2 facing seats, giving lots of luggage space between the seat backs. There's clearly been a lot of thought put into the design of the seating, and stairs and doors to minimise entry/exit times. They're probably the best designed carriage layout I've seen, and that includes the BR Mk3.

A more generous seat pitch (yielding say 120-130 seats in a standard carriage) and a less spartan interior and you'd have an ideal carriage for the HS2 captive trains.

 

[HSTEd]

At the end of the day, we are talking about journeys of less than 70 minutes.

I am not proposing S-stock interiors (now if we had built a Maglev instead if would be!), but we do have to get some perspective.
This is nothing like the conventional WCML intercity traffic and we shouldn't consider it as such.

This is an epochal change to the railways on par with WCML electrification and 100mph running.

The railway that existed before HS2 will not be the railway that exists after it.

 

[Bigman]

If you were operating trains that just stick to HS2 metals and don’t extend onto conventional routes, then there would be nothing to stop you operating double deck stock. They would not be classed as long distance either. If you had dedicated platforms for such services, then you wouldn’t need as long platforms. Many UK termini have shorter platforms for different types of trains.

 

[quantinghome]

This is an epochal change to the railways on par with WCML electrification and 100mph running.

The railway that existed before HS2 will not be the railway that exists after it.

That's true. As far as the captive network goes we should be asking what sort of train 'experience' passengers are looking for on 30 - 80 minute journeys. It's not the same as a 2 to 3 hour journey.

I was reading about the WCML in the 60s and I was struck by just how different traffic was on the line back in the day. There were only four day-time trains from Euston to Scotland, and around 7 sleeper trains. Presumably the journey time meant that sleepers were favoured. Electrification and other upgrades shifted the balance to regular day time trains and a few sleepers, with the latter gradually dwindling over the decades. Moving from a 7 hour to 5 hour journey had a significant effect, and HS2 will as well.

 

[BayPaul]

What's my point? The thread is under 'Speculative ideas'. I am suggesting the time to consider double-deck trains is way before construction starts. I'm an architect by background and not a railway operations person. I know that changes, including those intended to make 'savings', invariably cost money and cause delay.

The line is designed and built to have the ability to take double deck trains. Initially it won't have any, but it is a useful way to allow capacity on it to grow in the future - great to see long term thinking in action! This thread is more about when those trains should be introduced. It is generally agreed that there is no case at all before Phase 2B is opened, as before that they would only be usable on London - Birmingham diagrams. After 2B, they would also be useful on London - Manchester and Leeds diagrams. Personally I am a big advocate of 'Pile it high and sell it cheap' - Although this tactic hasn't been used in other countries, for most other countries HS rail has been more about adding speed, whereas in the UK, it is far more about capacity, and to me it makes a lot of sense to swallow up as many car journeys off the M40/M1/M6 as possible, so I would go for bringing in double-deck trains as the additional rolling stock introduced when Phase 2B opens. I must say I was impressed with the diagram showing just how much taller they could be than those in France, which are themselves OK, and the layout with doors above the bogies seems fine to me, especially on shortish journeys where most/all pax have a reserved seat, so there is no need for anyone to walk the length of the train.

 

[HST43257]

If the infrastructure allows it, I’d be more than open to double decker trains, most likely just on HS2 only sets. 2tph from London for all of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester would be fine if there was much more capacity. The disabled persons issue can be sorted by not every coach on a 400m train being double decker. If it was 20 x 20m coaches, I’d suggest keeping perhaps 4 of them (2 at each end?) as regulars.

 

[D365]

Another dumb question from me- why?

There is uncertainty as to whether the eastern leg will actually be completed.