Controversial railway opinions (without a firm foundation in logic..)

[43096]

Nor as EMUs, because you can't just bang them together, you need someone to faff with the screw coupler, cables and brake pipes.

Which takes less time than faffing around with auto-couplers that refuse to couple.

 

[Egg Centric]

Considering that there are a grand total of three sleeper routes in the UK, none of which have changed their routing in decades, flexibility does not really seem to be necessary.

If there were flexibility you could do all sorts of one offs though (at enormous cost but that's fine cause it's the railway).

EG:

Glasgow-Northampton for the Grand Prix
Birmingham-Southampton for the Queen Mary 2 (the EMUS would be dual voltage ofc)
Hebden Bridge-Castle Cary for Glastonbury (Did we say EMU? we meant EDMU)

 

[LUYMun]

Loco-Hauled sets are the best rolling stock

• Unrivaled flexibility (You could just change a loco in a few minutes or detach/reattach a coach)
• Unrivaled passenger confort (you don't have the whole equipment and traction motors under your feet so noise is minimal and space can be much better used)
• Usually a lot more likeable by fans
• Apart from China nobody wants a sleeper EMU

I’d also add that coaches would spend less time in maintenance and overhaul since there’s fewer equipment under the frame so lesser chances to go wrong, with much more attention given over to the locomotives.

I agree with you here. Often wondered what they do with the old ones when they dispose of them during station refurbs, I quite fancy one for the garden...

As do I. I suspect they get scrapped, which is a shame as I'd happily pay a sensible sum for one. Don't have a garden myself currently but it'd be an ideal present for my brother!

I’ve stumbled across this website who presumably still manufactures these benches, titling them the O11 design: https://www.macemainamstad.com/products/street-furniture/011-series

Plenty of photos on there exhibiting their use in public spaces, including Cwmbran station, and the many, many varieties they can make. Now to find an order link…

 

[popeter45]

Loco-Hauled sets are the best rolling stock

• Unrivaled flexibility (You could just change a loco in a few minutes or detach/reattach a coach)
• Unrivaled passenger confort (you don't have the whole equipment and traction motors under your feet so noise is minimal and space can be much better used)
• Usually a lot more likeable by fans
• Apart from China nobody wants a sleeper EMU

At this point many MU's are essentially loco+coaching stock as fewer cars need motors

Big disadvantage for loco hauled is you need longer platforms for the same passenger capacity so bested used when you have the space for such

OBB like LHCS alot cause they still carry alot of freight so can dual use the locomotives unlike in the UK

 

[jfowkes]

Here's an opinion: the "H" in the HS2 logo looks weird.



I guess it's deliberately elongated to give the impression of speed(?)... but it just looks wrong.

 

[Recessio]

Here's an opinion: the "H" in the HS2 logo looks weird.

View attachment 162048

I guess it's deliberately elongated to give the impression of speed(?)... but it just looks wrong.

I thought it was meant to look like two rails and a sleeper. It does look odd though

 

[Wolfie]

Here's an opinion: the "H" in the HS2 logo looks weird.

View attachment 162048

I guess it's deliberately elongated to give the impression of speed(?)... but it just looks wrong.

I'd never noticed that..... You are right though.

 

[317 forever]

Here's an opinion: the "H" in the HS2 logo looks weird.

View attachment 162048

I guess it's deliberately elongated to give the impression of speed(?)... but it just looks wrong.

They should have cut the width of the H when they cut the section to Manchester

 

[popeter45]

heres a opinion
to do double decker we dont need to copy european loading gauge, just go even taller then GC so lower floor is same level as current single decker UK trains

 

[CBlue]

heres a opinion
to do double decker we dont need to copy european loading gauge, just go even taller then GC so lower floor is same level as current single decker UK trains

Or just use the European gauge platform heights and go triple-decker!

 

[HSTEd]

heres a opinion
to do double decker we dont need to copy european loading gauge, just go even taller then GC so lower floor is same level as current single decker UK trains

There was a thread many years ago where this idea was discussed

I believe the outcome was that just going tall would likely be cheaper than the European approach, but would probably still be ruinously expensive.

The railway is stuck with its tiny loading gauge, probably forever.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Here's an opinion: the "H" in the HS2 logo looks weird.

View attachment 162048

I guess it's deliberately elongated to give the impression of speed(?)... but it just looks wrong.

That looks terrible... was it designed by the same people who came up with the new name for Merseytravel?

 

[Railsigns]

Here's an opinion: the "H" in the HS2 logo looks weird.

Considering what the "H" stands for, it might have made more sense to make it higher rather than wider.

 

[The Ham]

The TOCs and their staff come across with the view that their job is to move trains and it is not their job to move people. If people happen to be on board that is their choice.

This is why some rail staff don't have the best customer service skills. They don't see customer service as their job.

I don't think that this has been my experience as either a passenger or a customer.

I can give examples where staff have gone out of their way to create tickets for passengers who are too young to be customers and staff who have been tasked on a daily basis to collect a blind customer from a train and navigate then around the station - in doing so chatting to them as they do so as it was often the same few staff. I've seen staff allow customers to use out of service rolling stock to get further on without having to wait for the next service (which they probably shouldn't do).

I'm sure there's more, and I'm sure that if we were to ask others they'd be able to come up with other examples.

Of course I'm sure that I could think of examples where the staff haven't been quite to the standard that they should have, but that's the case in all customer facing roles (and indeed could be down to then having an off day due to external circumstances - for example as a regular user of trains I rarely need to ask questions, however when I do it's likely to be at a time of disruption and so probably they've been asked the same question 100 times in the last half an hour and so probably their smile has slipped a little).

There was a thread many years ago where this idea was discussed

I believe the outcome was that just going tall would likely be cheaper than the European approach, but would probably still be ruinously expensive.

The railway is stuck with its tiny loading gauge, probably forever.

Forever is a significantly long time, over time all bridges will need replacing, most could be rebuilt (maybe with a bit of track lowering) to facilitate a over height gauge. Therefore given enough time it's possible without being ruinously expensive (note I'm not suggesting that it would be cheap).

Having said that, it's probably best to do this for all new lines (especially high speed lines) regardless, as then you've got a clear route you can deliver the double decked services rather than there being 4 troublesome bridges on an existing line which blocks the use of double height trains.

 

[Transilien]

If the UK did use European loading gauge it would make the procurement of trains cheaper too because operators could just procure standard designs for trains rather than have the manufacture spec a special design for the UK market.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The Eurostar's pre HS1 period was actually amazing.

Even myself at the time, I couldn't wait to bury Waterloo and counted down the days until St. Pancras opened. Sure, running the Eurostar Waterloo never looked right. But it retrospect, it was actually pretty amazing what we did, connect an island's railway system which used a completely different voltage system, to the burgeoning continent with trains never seen before; quarter of a mile long trains, with 4 power cars, snaking their way into London through the many different spurs and tracks through South London. Then stabling them right next to GWML to clearly see. I wish I appreciated that period more. HS1 is great, I suppose, but will never beat the magic standing outside Clapham Sainsbury's watching a Eurostar outside Sainsbury's pass over the High Street.

 

[Jimini]

The Eurostar's pre HS1 period was actually amazing.

Even myself at the time, I couldn't wait to bury Waterloo and counted down the days until St. Pancras opened. Sure, running the Eurostar Waterloo never looked right. But it retrospect, it was actually pretty amazing what we did, connect an island's railway system which used a completely different voltage system, to the burgeoning continent with trains never seen before; quarter of a mile long trains, with 4 power cars, snaking their way into London through the many different spurs and tracks through South London. Then stabling them right next to GWML to clearly see. I wish I appreciated that period more. HS1 is great, I suppose, but will never beat the magic standing outside Clapham Sainsbury's watching a Eurostar outside Sainsbury's pass over the High Street.

Very true. I used to love seeing the old E* trains overhead whilst supping a pint in the Falcon beer garden, back in the day!

 

[LUYMun]

Why would we need ETCS? Physical signals work fine enough.

 

[HSTEd]

Why would we need ETCS? Physical signals work fine enough.

Because they represent a major maintenance and training burden, especially as tightening standards force banner repeaters to spread like mushrooms.

 

[D869]

Enforce the "dogs must be carried on escalators" rule on the London Underground. Pooch-less passengers have been getting away with it for far too long.

 

[matacaster]

Here's an opinion: the "H" in the HS2 logo looks weird.

View attachment 162048

I guess it's deliberately elongated to give the impression of speed(?)... but it just looks wrong.

Perhaps the H is elongated to somehow demonstrate capacity

 

[43096]

Enforce the "dogs must be carried on escalators" rule on the London Underground. Pooch-less passengers have been getting away with it for far too long.

Similarly, enforce the cycle reservations are mandatory rule. Every passenger must have a bike reservation.

 

[BogiePicker]

There was a thread many years ago where this idea was discussed

I believe the outcome was that just going tall would likely be cheaper than the European approach, but would probably still be ruinously expensive.

The railway is stuck with its tiny loading gauge, probably forever.

Not quite, in my view.

A lot of continental double decker stock are 'only' 2.8m wide eg Siemens DD used by SBB. In fact, a lot of the latest Siemens stock are going towards 2.8x m (albeit with crazy 28.x m lengths in ICE4). My memories of an SBB DD were that it was rather cosy on the ground floor.

If we are really desperate, it should be noted that French DD stock is only 4.2x m of height (at least TGV), while British is around 3.9m.

I noticed that the GAML has a LOT of vertical clearance, the pantographs are extended quite high up when the 745s fly by. Not sure how many bridges there would be, but there can't be that many tunnels on the way to East Anglia.

It is true that lower sector gauge width, where lower deck passengers would sit, would be challenged at probably 2.65m at an maximum, but the 185 is 2.666 (though with very thin walls) and the 168 not much wider at 2.69.

 

[ainsworth74]

If we are really desperate, it should be noted that French DD stock is only 4.2x m of height (at least TGV), while British is around 3.9m.

Though they use more of the vertical space than we do. You step down into a TGV and the lower deck goes down even a bit further after that so they're using nearly all the available vertical area in a way that we simply don't as we stuff it full of underfloor gubbins.

Hmm, perhaps we can finally please the cranks! We'll bring back rakes of coaches with power cars at each end so all the underfloor gubbins can either be moved to the power cars at each end of squished into spaces at the end of the carriages on the lower deck!

 

[BogiePicker]

Though they use more of the vertical space than we do. You step down into a TGV and the lower deck goes down even a bit further after that so they're using nearly all the available vertical area in a way that we simply don't as we stuff it full of underfloor gubbins.

Hmm, perhaps we can finally please the cranks! We'll bring back rakes of coaches with power cars at each end so all the underfloor gubbins can either be moved to the power cars at each end of squished into spaces at the end of the carriages on the lower deck

Correction to self: the TGVs are in fact 4.3x m high, but, to be fair, the UK standard gauges are around 3.95m high.

The solution would probably be to run a Siemens Desiro HC style unit - single deck end vehicles with accessible entrances and seating, and DD trailed vehicles in between. The Flirts seem to show how you might do this with very few powered bogies.

 

[HSTEd]

If we are going to start changing the loading gauge, and thus incurring enormous rebuild costs in any case, would we not want to go for the largest loading gauge we can get away with?

GB+ doesn't seem to offer that much in way of capacity advantages over the British gauge given how narrow it is.

 

[BogiePicker]

If we are going to start changing the loading gauge, and thus incurring enormous rebuild costs in any case, would we not want to go for the largest loading gauge we can get away with?

GB+ doesn't seem to offer that much in way of capacity advantages over the British gauge given how narrow it is.

I had in mind looking for specific corridors where it might be possible to get a somewhat shorter maximum height for a lot less. IIRC there was a study to do this for the GWML and they costed amendments for 4.4 and 4.5m increments. A TGV isn't as tall as the tallest continental train, and I suspect the shortest Japanese narrow gauge DDs aren't that tall either. The RSSB also did a study of UIC GC transforming the Diggle route and think they concluded that PG2 would be viable but not full GC.

For new build I'd go for bigger than GC, the German - Danish tunnel is for 3.6m width, I believe.

 

[eldomtom2]

and I suspect the shortest Japanese narrow gauge DDs aren't that tall either.

From what I find online, the double-decker "Green Car" (first class) carriages used on suburban Tokyo services are (in the case of the most common example, the E233 series) roughly 20m long, 2.95m wide, and 4.05m tall.

 

[HSTEd]

I had in mind looking for specific corridors where it might be possible to get a somewhat shorter maximum height for a lot less. IIRC there was a study to do this for the GWML and they costed amendments for 4.4 and 4.5m increments. A TGV isn't as tall as the tallest continental train, and I suspect the shortest Japanese narrow gauge DDs aren't that tall either. The RSSB also did a study of UIC GC transforming the Diggle route and think they concluded that PG2 would be viable but not full GC.

For new build I'd go for bigger than GC, the German - Danish tunnel is for 3.6m width, I believe.

I believe the height of the Japanese narrow gauge double deck vehicles is something like ~4.1m or so.
However, I don't think they have the lower structure gauge issues that plague conventional British railways.

 

[Falcon1200]

If we are going to start changing the loading gauge, and thus incurring enormous rebuild costs in any case, would we not want to go for the largest loading gauge we can get away with?

Yes, not only loading gauge but track gauge too; Around 7 feet sounds good, and some stations might still have space for it.....