Uk double deck trains

[Eagle]

If it wasn't for the Connaught tunnel double deck trains on Crossrail would have been a good place to start, especially as the trains are likely to spend their entire lives on the same route.

What about all the bridges that'd need raising on the GEML and GWML?

 

[VP185]

Exactly, they haven't been raised enough in my opinion to allow DD trains to operate. I'm not talking about introducing DD trains immediately but what happens when in, say 10-15 years time, CrossRail trains are overcrowded along with the GWML because it will happen.

None of the work currently being undertaken has been future proofed. In reality you're only going to get limited few years of benefit, if any at all.

 

[dosxuk]

With the headways being talked about for Crossrail (less than 2.5 minutes between one train departing and the next arriving, boarding and departing itself), the biggest challenge for double deck trains would be dwell times, not the low bridges. There have been discussions about whether three sets of doors per car side will be sufficient for peak loads as it is with single deck trains.

Does anywhere run double deckers on high frequency metro services?

 

[Eagle]

Paris RER (which is a very similar service to Crossrail) does.

 

[jon0844]

Bombardier won't be commenting on anything here as their computers keep failing.

 

[starrymarkb]

Paris RER (which is a very similar service to Crossrail) does.

Some German S-Bahn networks use deckers on low frequency routes, but the really high frequency routes use something more like S Stock with 3 double doors per side

[youtube]aIqdEWCXt7o[/youtube]

[youtube]j1lVsRMqvbQ[/youtube]

The French are also replacing older deckers with single deck Bombardier Spaciums.

 

[transmanche]

With the headways being talked about for Crossrail (less than 2.5 minutes between one train departing and the next arriving, boarding and departing itself), the biggest challenge for double deck trains would be dwell times, not the low bridges. There have been discussions about whether three sets of doors per car side will be sufficient for peak loads as it is with single deck trains.

Does anywhere run double deckers on high frequency metro services?

Well with double-deck trains, you wouldn't need a 2.5 min headway.

But perhaps what's needed is double-deck trains with double-deck platforms at the busiest stations...

 

[D365]

Some German S-Bahn networks use deckers on low frequency routes, but the really high frequency routes use something more like S Stock with 3 double doors per side

[youtube]aIqdEWCXt7o[/youtube]

The old 3-car 420s had 4 doors per carriage side, but then they were longer. A double-deck loco-hauled train was trialled on the Munich S4 in 1989 but nothing came of it and they now have the 4-car, 3 door 423s as above, but not enough for the second tunnel, electrified A line and the possible extensions!

Double-deckers would be a real challenge on Crossrail; I doubt that the proposed NXEMUs will be able to handle up to 32tph. Munich does 30tph, but with with 6 doors per carriage open at the three busiest stations, with platforms on both sides.

 

[thelem]

But perhaps what's needed is double-deck trains with double-deck platforms at the busiest stations...

That would need two full decks on top of each other at the edge of the train - which immediately makes solutions such as offset corridors pointless. You'd also have problems at the stations that only had one level of platform, as it would still need to be a custom height and people would need to walk up/down a full flight of stairs. It might work on a totally new build network though.

The obvious solution to dwell times though would seem to be platforms on both sides, particularly as that can easily be done on a station by station basis with minor changes to the rolling stock.

 

[transmanche]

That would need two full decks on top of each other at the edge of the train - which immediately makes solutions such as offset corridors pointless. You'd also have problems at the stations that only had one level of platform, as it would still need to be a custom height and people would need to walk up/down a full flight of stairs.

See post 22.

 

[The Planner]

Well with double-deck trains, you wouldn't need a 2.5 min headway.

But you wouldn't be any better off as the dwell time will increase to eat up the capacity.

 

[thelem]

Post 22 is an example of the sort of rolling stock that could be used, but it doesn't help answer the question of how to introduce such rolling stock - the platform height must be much lower than UK standards, and the train too tall.

 

[transmanche]

But you wouldn't be any better off as the dwell time will increase to eat up the capacity.

Yes, but the premise was that double-deck trains wouldn't be able to maintain a 2.5 in headway. However, with a double-deck train you wouldn't need to have a 2.5 min headway.

Even if a double-deck train holds only 50% more passengers, anything better than a 3.75 min headway means a win.

 

[The Planner]

Depends on how much journey time is considered important though, start increasing the dwell times the journey time increases. Double deck trains are likely to need an extra minute as a minimum, 10 stops, 10 minutes longer journey.

 

[Nym]

Yes, but the premise was that double-deck trains wouldn't be able to maintain a 2.5 in headway. However, with a double-deck train you wouldn't need to have a 2.5 min headway.

Even if a double-deck train holds only 50% more passengers, anything better than a 3.75 min headway means a win.

But then to maintain a good turn up and go frequency on the GEML and Abbey Wood branches you need good short headways, not to try and re-invent the wheel.

Then you end up with the likely case of what will be happening on the other side of Crossrail with 6 different service patterns to fulfil on the GWML and WCML and/or Chiltern Lines, not to mention the possibility of Met stations from Harrow OTH.

There is also the point of there is every chance that Crossrail will end up running with 1:40 headways with spares to give a service pattern of 32tph with 16tphpr on the Eastern end, potentially even pushing the previous 12tph on the GEML and the additional 8tph through Canary Warf, up the Lee Valley Lines or taking over some of the services on the former LTS lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well with double-deck trains, you wouldn't need a 2.5 min headway.

But perhaps what's needed is double-deck trains with double-deck platforms at the busiest stations...

And just how much more is all this tunnelling going to cost, and is there even space for tunnels with sufficient radius? I'll give you a clue, the answer begins with "N"...

The obvious solution to dwell times though would seem to be platforms on both sides, particularly as that can easily be done on a station by station basis with minor changes to the rolling stock.

But again, this screws up your tunnelling radii...

 

[RichmondCommu]

What about all the bridges that'd need raising on the GEML and GWML?

Well many of them on the GWML will need to be raised due to the advancement of electrification. And compared to increasing the height of a tunnel I would imagine bridges would be a much simpler task.

 

[Eagle]

Remember over half of the GWML side of Crossrail is already electrified...

 

[RichmondCommu]

Remember over half of the GWML side of Crossrail is already electrified...

Which means that the bridges maybe high enough to take double deck trains if the track was lowered?

 

[Nym]

Which means that the bridges maybe high enough to take double deck trains if the track was lowered?

NO!

The may be high enough, but the rest of the route isn't one that supports double deckers!

 

[Manchester77]

If double dockers went on a trail operations on GWML would a major hinderence be Box Tunnel? Network Rail have had to do loads just to put wire through it so if double dockers were to run on parts of our network we need to look at our network and see what we can change and what needs changing

 

[HSTEd]

Probably be cheaper to build a new line.....

A South Wales Shinkansen

 

[starrymarkb]

Our Platforms are the biggest hindrance to double deck as they intrude into the space where the lower deck would go...

 

[Traindesign]

Hi,
Thank heavens for constructive comment at last, I'm at the stage now where I need hand drawns turned into cad and then mock up, this is no pie in the sky project and I'm hoping it will go to at least prototype stage, if it isn't taken up it will be a shame. Thanks for your interest,
TD

 

[whhistle]

Not pie in the sky? :P
For the next decade it is at least.

Although I often wonder why they don't build HS2 to a larger gauge and bore tunnels to enable double decking if required. After all the bespoke trains won't exactly be travelling elsewhere on the network.

 

[swt_passenger]

Although I often wonder why they don't build HS2 to a larger gauge and bore tunnels to enable double decking if required. After all the bespoke trains won't exactly be travelling elsewhere on the network.

They are intending to build HS2 to UIC/TSI GC gauge, which does allow 'European style' DD trains. 7.25 m diameter tunnels for instance.

No firm indications yet that they intend to use them though...

 

[90019]

Hi,
Thank heavens for constructive comment at last, I'm at the stage now where I need hand drawns turned into cad and then mock up, this is no pie in the sky project and I'm hoping it will go to at least prototype stage, if it isn't taken up it will be a shame. Thanks for your interest,
TD

Since it's such a radical design, and you're so sure of it, why haven't you gone to a professional or a company to get the CAD done and then work on towards a mock up?

Why are you trying to ask people for favours and money on a forum whilst staying so secretive about your design and refusing to post details?
Frankly, anyone who agrees to support it on the basis of what you're actually prepared to reveal would have to be a total mug.

 

[LexyBoy]

I'd love to see it happen - or for that matter how you propose to accomplish such a design. I'm not skeptical because I think any change from the status quo is a risk, rather that I haven't seen anything to convince me that it is remotely possible. As it happens, the IEP saga has shown that as far as the DfT is concerned it's better to have something custom specified for the UK with as much overcomplication as possible, than an off-the-shelf design.

If you've already approached the main industry players with your design then who are you worried will pinch it? When you say you have hand-drawn designs are you talking about sketches or detailed scale designs based on commercially available components?

 

[bangor-toad]

Good evening all,
Is there anyone here who would like to be involved in a uk double deck train project? I have registered designs and am waiting to see where we go next, this is not pie in the sky and comes from a very experienced railman, next stage mock-up which means money!!

Hi there,
Have you got formal Registered Design on what you're doing? This is the first stage you have to do; check out The UK IPO Office Website for the relevant details. This will cost you but not very much.

A quick trawl through the IPO website reveals that there are currently no designs with protection in section 12 (Means of Transport or Hoisting) subsection 03 (Locomotives, rolling stock for railways...) relating to double deck designs.
(As an aside, I never knew that BNFL/DRS took out a Registered Design on their refurb of their Class 20's: IPO Office link )

Do be aware from that, that a Registered Design is publically searchable.

Once you have some IP protection, then you can build a model out of cardboard / clay / plastikcard / wood or whatever that shows off the features you've come up with to whoever you can interest in looking at them.
Almost all proof of concept demos are done with well painted non-functional mocks ups rather than being made out of anything substaintial.

Get a "non-disclosure agreement" prepared and then get anyone you show your design to and talk about and details of it, to sign that first. That along with a Registered Design will give you enough protection to license it to anyone who's interested.

I really can't see any reason to get CAD drawings prepared. You're at the early stages where you need to get interest, not worry about specific details. A license deal can be signed for a Registered Design far for simply that trying to tout CAD drawings.

I think you need to look at how to commercialise your idea effectively before going any further. As it happens, that's what I do. And to "out" myself, here's a website you may well find helpful: http://www.commercialisation.info

Good luck,
Jason

 

[Kali]

Computer models for animations & visualisation aids don't need to be as complex/accurate/expensive as full CAD drawings - people who generally work with games are easily able to help out if you just want presentations and so on, you don't have to go straight to an engineer.

 

[Traindesign]

I wonder why we don't ever see posts from Bombardier or Siemens etc inviting input from the enthusiast community?

Do these repeating threads mean that Arups report to the DfT on the practicalities of DD trains has been proven to be completely wrong?

It depends on how you view it, the big train builders build a standard cigar tube and bolt on a cab or a intercar end, they don't like specials they are expensive to design and build with a limited market