Should all new build trains be built to a maximum width...

[FrozenPoints]

I love the Class 395. It is spatious, comfertable and most importantly wide, thus not making it crampted.

Its width is: 2.81 m (9 ft 3 in)

Compare this to the Class 390 Pendolino and Extendolino

Its width is: 2.73 m (8 ft 11 in)

What I am trying to say is, I think the width of a 395 should be the minimum BUT (Is that the maximum width a train in the UK can be built to, providing the likes of Bombadier and co. build a train like that).

Although with the likes of Intercity...so WCML and East Coast with Mark 4 coaches, it is not possible to build to a width such as the 395.

Imagine what the Pendo would be like with the width of a 395...

 

[swt_passenger]

I love the Class 395. It is spatious, comfertable and most importantly wide, thus not making it crampted.

Its width is: 2.81 m (9 ft 3 in)

Compare this to the Class 390 Pendolino and Extendolino

Its width is: 2.73 m (8 ft 11 in)

What I am trying to say is, I think the width of a 395 should be the minimum BUT (Is that the maximum width a train in the UK can be built to, providing the likes of Bombadier and co. build a train like that).

Although with the likes of Intercity...so WCML and East Coast with Mark 4 coaches, it is not possible to build to a width such as the 395.

Imagine what the Pendo would be like with the width of a 395...

Width and length are related to one another for use on our existing infrastructure. To go wider than 2.8m you need shorter vehicles, to go longer you have to get narrower. That's why 23m vehicles are generally around about the 2.74m width, and anything longer will start becoming narrower again, as we discussed the other day in a thread about 444s, at 2.688m.

So to widen the Pendolino you'd need to shorten all the carriages, and the 9 car train would have to have 10 cars to maintain capacity - and as the cost per carriage is not dependent solely on length, the train would cost more.

The idea for IEP though, is to have 26m carriages but alter the infrastructure to allow them to fit.

 

[tbtc]

Width and length are related to one another for use on our existing infrastructure. To go wider than 2.8m you need shorter vehicles, to go longer you have to get narrower. That's why 23m vehicles are generally around about the 2.74m width, and anything longer will start becoming narrower again, as we discussed the other day in a thread about 444s, at 2.688m.

So to widen the Pendolino you'd need to shorten all the carriages, and the 9 car train would have to have 10 cars to maintain capacity - and as the cost per carriage is not dependent solely on length, the train would cost more.

The idea for IEP though, is to have 26m carriages but alter the infrastructure to allow them to fit.

Agreed, and with the space taken up by doors/ toilets, a few longer coaches have more "seats per sq metre" than several shorter ones. A wider 390 sounds interesting, but there's a trade off between seating and other things (a ten coach train would have more doors, so less space for seats, but would make boarding easier etc)

 

[jopsuk]

The Pendolino also feels more cramped partly due to the compartively vicious taper required to keep it within gauge whilst tilting.

But, yes, as said, there are essentially two carriage sizes currently on the network:
2.8m x 20m
2.7m x 23m

Most Intercity-style is the latter, most commuter (including the 395s) is the former. There are two classes that are an exception- the 165 and 166 Networker Turbos are 2.8m x 23m- the routes they operate on are specially cleared to allow this (I think, mainly, it requires straighter platforms?)

 

[FrozenPoints]

So if there was a wider 390 on the WCML. This would mean shorter individual carriage lengths.

How many carriages will you need to compensate?

Would a (shorter) 390 with 12 carriages work?

The intrastrucutre would seemingly be able to cope with same, if not more passengers.

Unscientific:
390: 24.1m (length per car) x 11 = 265.1m = 591 seats on exisiting seating plus 152 (est) new seats based on maximum standard class seats.

395: 20.88m (length per car) x 12 = 250m = 704 seats on doubling the 6-car capacity. Could even be a 13-car train with 750 (est) seats. Making it a 271m, not much more than a 11-car extendolino.

Drawbacks, obivously seats would need to be removed for toliets, and, well I prefer the commuter draws rather than the intercity doors, more seats equals more capacity.

 

[tbtc]

So if there was a wider 390 on the WCML. This would mean shorter individual carriage lengths.

How many carriages will you need to compensate?

Would a (shorter) 390 with 12 carriages work?

The intrastrucutre would seemingly be able to cope with same, if not more passengers.

Unscientific:
390: 24.1m (length per car) x 11 = 265.1m = 591 seats on exisiting seating plus 152 (est) new seats based on maximum standard class seats.

395: 20.88m (length per car) x 12 = 250m = 704 seats on doubling the 6-car capacity. Could even be a 13-car train with 750 (est) seats. Making it a 271m, not much more than a 11-car extendolino.

Drawbacks, obivously seats would need to be removed for toliets, and, well I prefer the commuter draws rather than the intercity doors, more seats equals more capacity.

I can see where you are coming from, but you have to bear in mind that three coaches (?) of a 390 are FIrst Class (so "2 v 1" seating), plus there is "kitchen" space where seats could be, compared to a 395 which is all "2 v 2" seating)

 

[sprinterguy]

I can see where you are coming from, but you have to bear in mind that three coaches (?) of a 390 are FIrst Class (so "2 v 1" seating), plus there is "kitchen" space where seats could be, compared to a 395 which is all "2 v 2" seating)

Four coaches out of 9 are First Class on a Pendo. With 20 metre coaches and the same arrangement of facilities (with the kitchen at the head end of the driving car), you'd get precious few seats in the first class driving car. That saloon is tiny as it is. And even with the possibility of the kitchen moved into another carriage, you'd still have a larger proportion of the space in the driving cars devoid of seats compared to a 23m carriage, as is necessary to form the safety zone in the event of a collision.

 

[CosherB]

Why do wider coaches have to be shorter?

The APT showed that a tilting train does not need to be cramped inside, and can have proper sized windows. A Pendelino with a less claustrophobic interior would be superb!

Even Concorde was 9 feet wide in the cabin!

 

[90019]

Why do wider coaches have to be shorter?

To keep it within gauge on curves.


Happy now? :P

 

[Hydro]

To keep it within gauge on corners.

Curves, please. Muller make corners, railways make curves.

 

[sprinterguy]

Why do wider coaches have to be shorter?

The APT showed that a tilting train does not need to be cramped inside, and can have proper sized windows. A Pendelino with a less claustrophobic interior would be superb!

Even Concorde was 9 feet wide in the cabin!

Concorde didn't have to fit within the British railway loading gauge though I reckon those wings would be a bit of a poser at the first station platform it encountered...

To further your point, the Voyager and Meridian classes 220-222 are all built with the same bodyshell, which allows for the 221s to tilt. Yet, to me, the interior of a Voyager feels much roomier (width-wise at any rate) than that of a Pendolino, and there is obviously less of an obvious body taper towards the roof line on a Voyager or Meridian. 221s and 390s are both tilting trains that must fit within the same gauge envelope, so why is there such a big perceived difference in the body profiles?

Do Pendolinos have a greater degree of tilt capability than the 221s (APT was originally 9 degrees, the Pendos tilt to 6 degrees, so I wonder what the maximum degree of tilt for a Super Vomiter is) that means the body profile must narrow to a greater extent?

 

[ChrisCooper]

390s do have a higher tilt capability than the 221s (9deg as opposed to 6deg), but they also are out of gauge when tilting, hence the need for TASS. APT also tilted at 9deg and stayed within the loading gauge.

 

[tbtc]

Concorde didn't have to fit within the British railway loading gauge though I reckon those wings would be a bit of a poser at the first station platform it encountered...

Yeah, if the Severn Tunnel is too tight to get overhead wires through it* then a plane with an 84ft wingspan is going to struggle

(* - supposedly)

 

[jopsuk]

Why do wider coaches have to be shorter?

More specifically, to be within gauge through curved platforms- almost everywhere else there is rather more distance between structure and train

Even Concorde was 9 feet wide in the cabin!

Concorde's an odd one- feels pretty cramped inside, especially for an all 1st-class plane!

 

[me123]

The difference between the Pendolino and the Javelin is actually fairly negligible. It's 8cm, which for the 2+2 seating layout is an extra 2cm per passenger. For those of you of a more imperial persuasion, that's less than an inch each. All in all, it's just over three inches wider.

I really struggle to see how that alone equates to the extra space. Have you perhaps considered that the body shape of the Pendolino (which is tailored to allow tilting, suuposedly) may be skewing your perception of the spaciouness in the cabin? There's no doubt that the 390s feel "cosier" than a lot of other trains, and there's obviously the debate as to whether or not there could be more room in them (which is a whole other discussion), but I don't think the width of the carriage has very much/anything to do with it.

 

[90019]

For comparing interiors, surely maximum interior width should be compared rather than overall width of the body?

 

[starrymarkb]

Yeah, if the Severn Tunnel is too tight to get overhead wires through it* then a plane with an 84ft wingspan is going to struggle

(* - supposedly)

The Severn tunnel isn't too tight though - the surveyors say it isn't a problem!