Railway Infrastructure And Double Decker Trains

[SpacePhoenix]

How much would would tunnels and bridges need to be raised by (or the track beds lowered by) and platforms altered to allow trains like:

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

to be run in the UK. They're the same track gauge afaik and they don't look too much wider. Probably the main difference would be the height. The overhead there is 1,500V DC so I don't know if that would have any bearing on it (safe gap from the top of the train to the catenary).

If the lines were altered, what sorts of freight flows would that allow to go via rail that can't currently go by rail because of the current loading gauge?

 

[quantinghome]

How much would would tunnels and bridges need to be raised by (or the track beds lowered by) and platforms altered to allow trains like:

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

to be run in the UK. They're the same track gauge afaik and they don't look too much wider. Probably the main difference would be the height. The overhead there is 1,500V DC so I don't know if that would have any bearing on it (safe gap from the top of the train to the catenary).

If the lines were altered, what sorts of freight flows would that allow to go via rail that can't currently go by rail because of the current loading gauge?

About 0.8m: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Martin_S/Merseyrail/HS2gauge.jpg

 

[Loki]

How much would would tunnels and bridges need to be raised by (or the track beds lowered by) and platforms altered to allow trains like:

Well, the dimensions of the train are on wiki. So width wise you will need to chop about 7-10cm from the platform edges and about half a metre from the tunnels. Practically it would seem only the height is the problem.

If the lines were altered, what sorts of freight flows would that allow to go via rail that can't currently go by rail because of the current loading gauge?

Anything that runs on the continent pretty much except the widest wagons. Most modern locos fit for sure.

 

[sprinterguy]

Well, the dimensions of the train are on wiki. So width wise you will need to chop about 7-10cm from the platform edges and about half a metre from the tunnels. Practically it would seem only the height is the problem.

You would have greater problems than that due to the limitations of our Victorian infrastructure:

British trains are generally not widest at platform level, but above it, with typically an inward taper towards the solebar. This would pose a problem for double deck stock, where most (all?) modern double deck stock is slab sided in order to accommodate the low slung lower deck. The Sydney A trains are 21.5cm wider than even the widest 20 metre long UK passenger stock at its widest point.

Double deck stock 50cm taller than trains in the UK would have to taper significantly more at the top corners than the Sydney A trains to allow for the typical curved bores of tunnels and the traditional design of arch bridges. It is the top corners that are often the greatest limiting factor in British loading gauges, an issue of both width and height, and is one of the main features addressed by loading gauge enhancement.

 

[HSTEd]

Need newbuild lines to make it work basically.

 

[AM9]

Need newbuild lines to make it work basically.

And effectively for exclusive use, i.e. not worth stopping current stock at stations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Need newbuild lines to make it work basically.

And effectively for exclusive use, i.e. not worth stopping current stock at stations.

 

[Deepgreen]

I haven't examined the dimensions in any detail but I imagine a lot can be achieved these days with ultra-low floors to permit double deck (or at least 1.75 deck) arrangements - we've come a long way since the 4DDs! Modern materials and construction techniques may be able to be designed in to cut the space that the structural elements of the trains occupy, plus smaller and better-located equipment boxes, etc., to allow use of such layouts on existing routes with perhaps a few bridges requiring alterations here and there. Just conjecture based partly on continental European observations.

 

[swt_passenger]

I haven't examined the dimensions in any detail but I imagine a lot can be achieved these days with ultra-low floors to permit double deck (or at least 1.75 deck) arrangements - we've come a long way since the 4DDs!

The space at low floor level within existing structure gauge is definitely not amenable to double decker trains, the limited area (specifically lack of width) between the bogies is usually explained as being the biggest issue preventing them.

Have a think about all the under bridges where there are girders extending upwards between the tracks of a multi-track layout as an example of what would have to be seriously rebuilt.

It can't be more than a couple of months since the last attempt in this forum to fly the Australian DD kite, it didn't work then either...

 

[DarloRich]

this again!

Sorry - But they wont fit on our infrastructure without massively expensive rebuilding works!

 

[mister-sparky]

It is something that they do need to start thinking about though. Trains in the south east are already 12 coaches long and full to bursting point. adding another deck is the only answer. You can't keep making trains and platforms longer. Double-deck trains seem to work perfectly on german s-bahns.

 

[NSEFAN]

It is something that they do need to start thinking about though. Trains in the south east are already 12 coaches long and full to bursting point. adding another deck is the only answer. You can't keep making trains and platforms longer. Double-deck trains seem to work perfectly on german s-bahns.

There are other options too, such as ATO to squeeze trains closer together. I expect that double-deckers would affect dwell times adversely compared to the existing stock.

 

[3141]

There are other options too, such as ATO to squeeze trains closer together. I expect that double-deckers would affect dwell times adversely compared to the existing stock.

That works on the Underground when all the trains are the same length and layout and have similar stopping pattern - basically all stops.

It would be more difficult with trains of different lengths, different door layouts, and varying stopping patterns. I suspect the benefits of ATO would be harder to achieve.

I think the service would be more susceptible to disruption.

Double deck trains appear to offer a much greater potential increase in capacity, with less potential for disruption. The design of a double decker would be a crucial aspect of the project, to try to improve boarding and alighting and make dwell times as short as possible.

 

[pne]

Double-deck trains seem to work perfectly on trains in companies with a larger loading gauge than we have to work with here in the UK (outside of HS1).

I edited that for you.

 

[MCR247]

That works on the Underground when all the trains are the same length and layout and have similar stopping pattern - basically all stops.

It would be more difficult with trains of different lengths, different door layouts, and varying stopping patterns. I suspect the benefits of ATO would be harder to achieve.

I think the service would be more susceptible to disruption.

I don't see why door layouts and lengths would affect ATO? If you wanted platform edge doors then yes, but I don't see a problem with ATO

 

[HSTEd]

The big problem is that ATO can't overcome physics.

Trains with different characteristics, dwell times and the like remove many of the benefits.

 

[NLC1072]

The problem is that the track would needs quadrupling quite a long way up north to be viable... however the price of compulsory purchasing all of the properties that back on to the railway through each of the cities it passes through makes this prohibitively expensive and highly disruptive to those people and the rail service it self.