Could Double Deck trains be viable in the UK?

[Clip]

it's still a lot less land than either increasing the number of tracks or building a totally new line though isn't it? And I took his argument to be that going for DD would lead to too much disruption/ land grab to be acceptable to the local residents

It really is too much disruption because as Peter has explained to you already about how it would work so I shouldnt really need to repeat it. I mean just look at how close all the development that has sprouted up by Batteresea as you come over the bridge from Victoria - you are not going to get that land back and you are not going to please the people in there with Trains even closer to their windows and much bigger trains too.

And thats before you get to all the complex junctions by stewarts lane and onwards.


And then to get back to Clapham Junction there really would be far too much disturbance in closing parts of the station to enable the widening that it just seems an impossible dream

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

It really is too much disruption because as Peter has explained to you already about how it would work so I shouldnt really need to repeat it. I mean just look at how close all the development that has sprouted up by Batteresea as you come over the bridge from Victoria - you are not going to get that land back and you are not going to please the people in there with Trains even closer to their windows and much bigger trains too.

And thats before you get to all the complex junctions by stewarts lane and onwards.


And then to get back to Clapham Junction there really would be far too much disturbance in closing parts of the station to enable the widening that it just seems an impossible dream

hmm... if you were to live next to the tracks and commute along the same line to get to work which do you think would be worse for you? having your house compulsory purchased to widen the railway? or a couple of years disruption {which, given how engineering works already take place, would probably be done at weekends}?

 

[Clip]

hmm... if you were to live next to the tracks and commute along the same line to get to work which do you think would be worse for you? having your house compulsory purchased to widen the railway? or a couple of years disruption {which, given how engineering works already take place, would probably be done at weekends}?

Great so seeing as I wouldn't want my house purchased i have to live a life of rail replacement buses for a few years to actually go into town at a weekend.
Yeah you're really selling double deck trains here - just perfect

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Great so seeing as I wouldn't want my house purchased i have to live a life of rail replacement buses for a few years to actually go into town at a weekend.
Yeah you're really selling double deck trains here - just perfect

but you already suffer rail replacement buses at weekends for routine maintanence....and why would it take "years" to do the work? and wouldn't there be just as much disruption if the number of tracks were increased? or if there were new routes built?

 

[Bald Rick]

Things needed to enable double deck trains (of European gauge) on the GB network:

1) increase the height and width of the structure gauge. This means track separation must be increased, all tracks must be moved, embankments / cuttings widened, signals moved, OLE moved, all junctions altered (separation and fouling points), over bridges / tunnels increased in size, under bridges widened etc. All station platforms would need alteration, and in conjunction with the track separation changes, almost all would need at least one platform completely rebuilt. Etc.

2) stations must have sufficient capacity for the extra passengers

3) all train maintenance depots would need to be rebuilt

4) level crossings would need upgrading to mitigate the increased risk of additional passengers

5) traction power systems would need upgrading to accommodate the heavier trains.

Effectively you would need to completely rebuild the railway that is already running. And once any individual station is done, it could not have regular ‘current’ gauge trains calling. Which makes it rather difficult to implement unless you do the whole lot in one go. As an example, you couldn’t do London to Brighton; it would have to be all routes that use the lines also used by London to Brighton. Which is a lot to do in one go. Effectively you would have to close the Southern network for at least 5 years.

Conversely, you can build a new railway, serving the busy parts of the relevant line, without causing much disruption to existing services.

The reason various reports make out that it is difficult is because it IS difficult. Very. And much, much more expensive than building a new line. Hence HS2, HS1, and why Crossrail was built rather than upgrading the Central Line to heavy rail gauge.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Things needed to enable double deck trains (of European gauge) on the GB network:

1) increase the height and width of the structure gauge. This means track separation must be increased, all tracks must be moved, embankments / cuttings widened, signals moved, OLE moved, all junctions altered (separation and fouling points), over bridges / tunnels increased in size, under bridges widened etc. All station platforms would need alteration, and in conjunction with the track separation changes, almost all would need at least one platform completely rebuilt. Etc.

2) stations must have sufficient capacity for the extra passengers

3) all train maintenance depots would need to be rebuilt

4) level crossings would need upgrading to mitigate the increased risk of additional passengers

5) traction power systems would need upgrading to accommodate the heavier trains.

Effectively you would need to completely rebuild the railway that is already running. And once any individual station is done, it could not have regular ‘current’ gauge trains calling. Which makes it rather difficult to implement unless you do the whole lot in one go. As an example, you couldn’t do London to Brighton; it would have to be all routes that use the lines also used by London to Brighton. Which is a lot to do in one go. Effectively you would have to close the Southern network for at least 5 years.

Conversely, you can build a new railway, serving the busy parts of the relevant line, without causing much disruption to existing services.

The reason various reports make out that it is difficult is because it IS difficult. Very. And much, much more expensive than building a new line. Hence HS2, HS1, and why Crossrail was built rather than upgrading the Central Line to heavy rail gauge.

Well the report linked to on here didn't consider European gauge, it considered building DD trains built to the current GB gauge with the MINOR modifications neccessary to make it possible... and the cost/ disruption of doing so with all options considered made for very mixed reading... in effect the report could be read as an exhortation of "horses for courses"... considering that the report clearly shows that DD trains CAN in SOME circumstances be the better/ cheaper option then I, as a taxpayer funding the upgrade of the rail network, find it offensive that my money is being spent without DD trains EVER being considered to see if they can provide better value for money on any given upgrade project!

 

[Clip]

but you already suffer rail replacement buses at weekends for routine maintanence....and why would it take "years" to do the work? and wouldn't there be just as much disruption if the number of tracks were increased? or if there were new routes built?

Actually where I am I dont get buses as replacement at weekends but it has been known in the past and unless its routine maintenance then i dont want to suffer it again where possible just to satisfy someones need to have double deck trains on the line. I'd rather not have pain now for future generations to be pain free thanks.

And yes it would take years because there's only so much you can get done in 48 hours without risking the railway not being available for service on a Monday morning when people want to get to work.

Whilst they do sound nice to have they aren't necessary and I'm unsure that why when you read Bald Ricks post above you are still adamant that money should be spent on doing this.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Actually where I am I dont get buses as replacement at weekends but it has been known in the past and unless its routine maintenance then i dont want to suffer it again where possible just to satisfy someones need to have double deck trains on the line. I'd rather not have pain now for future generations to be pain free thanks.

And yes it would take years because there's only so much you can get done in 48 hours without risking the railway not being available for service on a Monday morning when people want to get to work.

Whilst they do sound nice to have they aren't necessary and I'm unsure that why when you read Bald Ricks post above you are still adamant that money should be spent on doing this.

er because the report that's been linked to clearly shows that sometimes DD trains are the best, most cost effective, way of improving capacity... and at the end of the day, as a tax payer I expect those spending that money to get the most bang for the bucks. Of course you've summed it up in a nutshell as to why DD trains AREN'T considered Not In My Back Yard!

 

[Dr Hoo]

er because the report that's been linked to clearly shows that sometimes DD trains are the best, most cost effective, way of improving capacity... and at the end of the day, as a tax payer I expect those spending that money to get the most bang for the bucks. Of course you've summed it up in a nutshell as to why DD trains AREN'T considered Not In My Back Yard!

One aspect that hasn’t had much airing in this thread is the question of design, procurement, funding and construction of a DD fleet for the UK.
Given recent trends for more ready access for the mobility impaired, buggies, cycles, other luggage and capacious toilets (which I presume would all need to be on the ‘mezzanine’ level adjacent to the doors and over the bogies), I have difficulty in imagining how long the actual seating saloons might be, especially when stairways are included. Overall vehicle length would presumably be relatively short to reduce centre and end throw, allowing as much interior width as possible.
This seems to suggest a completely novel design, unable to draw on experience with any existing stock elsewhere in the world.
Does anyone from a rolling stock background have any idea of how much it might cost to produce a couple of prototypes and how long it might take?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your double decker bit would just be the bit between the bogies, so for UK stock probably only about half of a 23m or slightly more of a 26m vehicle. It'd look much like the German ones, just smaller, I reckon. And you'd lose more length to a locomotive or above-floor power equipment, as it can't go in its usual location under the floor.

But I reckon if you did a short, wide articulated EMU with 3+2 seating on one level it'd be more comfortable and quicker to load/unload.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well the report linked to on here didn't consider European gauge, it considered building DD trains built to the current GB gauge with the MINOR modifications neccessary to make it possible... and the cost/ disruption of doing so with all options considered made for very mixed reading... in effect the report could be read as an exhortation of "horses for courses"... considering that the report clearly shows that DD trains CAN in SOME circumstances be the better/ cheaper option then I, as a taxpayer funding the upgrade of the rail network, find it offensive that my money is being spent without DD trains EVER being considered to see if they can provide better value for money on any given upgrade project!

I’m sorry that you’re offended about this.

The report doesn’t say that DD trains are the most cost effective option. It says that in some circumstances it is more cost effective to rebuild the network for DD trains than to rebuild the network for 16 coach trains. It also says the capacity increase for DD trains on a GB DD gauge is relatively small.

I can’t think of any recent taxpayer funded capacity upgrades to the existing network which could have had DD services as a realistic alternative; but perhaps there are?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I’m sorry that you’re offended about this.

The report doesn’t say that DD trains are the most cost effective option. It says that in some circumstances it is more cost effective to rebuild the network for DD trains than to rebuild the network for 16 coach trains. It also says the capacity increase for DD trains on a GB DD gauge is relatively small.

I can’t think of any recent taxpayer funded capacity upgrades to the existing network which could have had DD services as a realistic alternative; but perhaps there are?

but my point is that, since that report was produced, there have been no upgrade projects where the possibility of DD's has been investigated... considering that the report clearly shows that in some cases DD operation gives the best value for money in increasing capacity how can I know that the money that HAS been spent has been done so to the best advantage of those that are paying for it... us the taxpayer...

 

[Bald Rick]

but my point is that, since that report was produced, there have been no upgrade projects where the possibility of DD's has been investigated... considering that the report clearly shows that in some cases DD operation gives the best value for money in increasing capacity how can I know that the money that HAS been spent has been done so to the best advantage of those that are paying for it... us the taxpayer...

My bold. As I said earlier, the report doesn’t say that. It just says that in comparison to running trains that are longer than the current infrastructure can cope with, they are sometimes a better option.

My question, perhaps poorly worded, was to make the point that capacity upgrades by their nature rarely cover a whole line of route they are at specific locations. Whereas DD trains clearly must include work on a whole line of route.

For example, the Hitchin flyover enables more capacity on the ECML and Cambridge branch. You are quite right that double deck trains into Kings X weren’t considered as an alternative. But it’s pretty obvious why not, especially when options of longer trains within the capability of the existing infrastructure is possible.

So my question put another way is - which capacity upgrades on the existing network do you think should have considered DD trains as an alternative?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

My bold. As I said earlier, the report doesn’t say that. It just says that in comparison to running trains that are longer than the current infrastructure can cope with, they are sometimes a better option.

My question, perhaps poorly worded, was to make the point that capacity upgrades by their nature rarely cover a whole line of route they are at specific locations. Whereas DD trains clearly must include work on a whole line of route.

For example, the Hitchin flyover enables more capacity on the ECML and Cambridge branch. You are quite right that double deck trains into Kings X weren’t considered as an alternative. But it’s pretty obvious why not, especially when options of longer trains within the capability of the existing infrastructure is possible.

So my question put another way is - which capacity upgrades on the existing network do you think should have considered DD trains as an alternative?

ok an example...and I'm not suggesting that it is at capacity but am using it as an exampe... Charing X- Tonbridge- Hastings

For much of it's length it is double track with no room to add extra tracks. Furthermore, south of Tunbridge Wells there are a number of tunnels which have to be single track due to the original build being for narrow bodied trains... now let's say traffic builds up so much on the line that more trains are needed on this line, but the line can literally take no more trains... what would be cheaper? rebuilding the tunnels {or, more likely boring parralel tunnels} to get rid of the bottlenecks that severely restrict the number of trains that can be operated OR putting in DD trains built to GB loading guages?

 

[Clip]

er because the report that's been linked to clearly shows that sometimes DD trains are the best, most cost effective, way of improving capacity... and at the end of the day, as a tax payer I expect those spending that money to get the most bang for the bucks. Of course you've summed it up in a nutshell as to why DD trains AREN'T considered Not In My Back Yard!

You didn't read the report correctly then as helpfully pointed out by Bald Rick - Im no nimby as my back garden doesnt back on to the railway line but i can fully understand the frustration and anger of someone who would be affected by it, yes. But i guess that doesnt really matter in your mind and your odd quest for trying to justify DD trains.

ok an example...and I'm not suggesting that it is at capacity but am using it as an exampe... Charing X- Tonbridge- Hastings

For much of it's length it is double track with no room to add extra tracks. Furthermore, south of Tunbridge Wells there are a number of tunnels which have to be single track due to the original build being for narrow bodied trains... now let's say traffic builds up so much on the line that more trains are needed on this line, but the line can literally take no more trains... what would be cheaper? rebuilding the tunnels {or, more likely boring parralel tunnels} to get rid of the bottlenecks that severely restrict the number of trains that can be operated OR putting in DD trains built to GB loading guages?

You were using Vic - Brighton before why have you changed your example? Is it because you have had pointed out to you the difficulties in doing it on this route so you've looked for another to push forward?

At the end of the day if they were a viable alternative with minimal disruption to those who pay their fares AND the taxes you keep on about then they would already be done. But they're not. So there.

 

[Eyersey468]

I went on a double deck train in France earlier this year, if you are on the lower deck you are sat only just above track level, it was quite an odd feeling at first

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

You didn't read the report correctly then as helpfully pointed out by Bald Rick - Im no nimby as my back garden doesnt back on to the railway line but i can fully understand the frustration and anger of someone who would be affected by it, yes. But i guess that doesnt really matter in your mind and your odd quest for trying to justify DD trains.

of course ignoring the fact that if it was a situation of either DD trains or more tracks then the more tracks option would mean even more disruption... and possibly being forced to sell your home to Network Rail.

You were using Vic - Brighton before why have you changed your example? Is it because you have had pointed out to you the difficulties in doing it on this route so you've looked for another to push forward?

Not at all, it was pointed out that usually improvements are made on a piece meal basis with only the bottlenecks being addressed... and I was asked to provide an example of where such a project would need to be done on a whole line basis... so I did!

At the end of the day if they were a viable alternative with minimal disruption to those who pay their fares AND the taxes you keep on about then they would already be done. But they're not. So there.

And still you {willfully?} miss the point I am making.... the report linked to, whilst clearly being devised with a bias to prove that DD trains are never viable instead proved that sometimes DD trains are the best option... the report has then quietly been forgotten about/ buried. And since then, not once has a project been costed on the basis of considering ALL viable options... ergo as a taxpayer paying for all these projects how can I be sure that my money has been spent to the best possible effect?

ALL I am saying is that the option should ALWAYS be considered and costed on ANY expansion project.

It's a bit like when we moved from steam... most lines went over to diesel because electrification was considered "too expensive" and yet, now, 50 yrs later there is a push to try and electrify as much as possible as quickly{?} as possible.... I wonder how much money that's wasted over the 50 yrs?

 

[radamfi]

Are double decker trains falling out of favour a little now? The latest Sprinter (local) trains for Dutch railways are single decker, and the new trains for the Brussels regional network are also single decker. Single decker also have the potential for level or near level boarding, so therefore faster boarding compared to older single deck trains. The old trains in both cases were single decker, but maybe we could have expected double deck to replace single deck?

Conversely, the Netherlands have now introduced double deckers on two express bus routes. Double deck probably make more sense when there are big gaps between stops, and I guess that applies for both buses and trains.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

ok an example...and I'm not suggesting that it is at capacity but am using it as an exampe... Charing X- Tonbridge- Hastings

For much of it's length it is double track with no room to add extra tracks. Furthermore, south of Tunbridge Wells there are a number of tunnels which have to be single track due to the original build being for narrow bodied trains... now let's say traffic builds up so much on the line that more trains are needed on this line, but the line can literally take no more trains... what would be cheaper? rebuilding the tunnels {or, more likely boring parralel tunnels} to get rid of the bottlenecks that severely restrict the number of trains that can be operated OR putting in DD trains built to GB loading guages?

But the obvious problem here is that double-deck trains would need a different platform gauge, and so would not be able to use the same platforms as conventional trains. So what are you going to do with - say - the London-Tonbridge-Dover trains? There are really two options:

• Either you have to convert London-Dover to double-deck too, so that they can use the newly converted platforms at Tonbridge etc. - and then by repeating the same argument at Ashford, Dover, Margate, etc., you quickly find that you'll have to convert the entire SouthEastern network to double-deck just in order to accommodate the London-Hastings trains. Even aside from cost, that will mean basically closing down the entire Southeastern network for a couple of years to do all the work. I wonder how popular that would be with the commuters... So, clearly that's not practical.
• Or, you can provide separate platforms everywhere for the London-Hastings trains. Which means you have to build new dedicated DD-gauge platforms for them everywhere that they share track with other routes. Tonbridge. Orpington. Good luck with doing that at London Bridge, Waterloo East and Charing Cross! I think St. Leonards Warrior Square could prove an 'interesting' challenge too - and all for just 2 trains an hour (4 North of Tunbridge Wells)! So obviously that's not practical either. And it also means you have all the expense of operating a dedicated micro-fleet of trains. How many trains do you need to run the London-Hastings route? I'm guessing, no more than 8 to 10 trains are required. So you have to put in a tiny, tiny order for custom-built trains, with all the implications of much higher cost per train. And you have to have separate maintenance facilities etc., and you lose the flexibility of being able to transfer trains between routes when required.

(And by the way, are you sure that double deck trains won't require you to re-bore at least some of the existing tunnels anyway - think of the ones around St. Leonards and the ones between Orpington and Sevenoaks).

No, it's pretty obvious that, as a solution to increasing capacity, boring new tunnels to get rid of the single track bottlenecks is going to win out by a mile.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

But the obvious problem here is that double-deck trains would need a different platform gauge, and so would not be able to use the same platforms as conventional trains.

If you read the report that was linked to the thread and which I am referring to you will see that the report was compiled on the basis of using DD trains built to the British loading guage

(And by the way, are you sure that double deck trains won't require you to re-bore at least some of the existing tunnels anyway - think of the ones around St. Leonards and the ones between Orpington and Sevenoaks).

No, it's pretty obvious that, as a solution to increasing capacity, boring new tunnels to get rid of the single track bottlenecks is going to win out by a mile.

Even if the tunnels need widening surely that is cheaper than boring new tunnels running parallel?

Part of my hypothesis is that when doing major engineering works the works needed to make any section of track suitable for DD should be done as a matter of course as a way of future-proofing the railways, especially in the South East where many parts of the network are already working close to capacity... we are getting to the point that we can no longer push any more trains through the available tracks... there are 3 solutions:

1 Longer trains
2 DD trains
3 doubling of tracks

no 3 will be prohibitively expensive due to land prices in London and the South East...and would be political suicide for any Government that insisted on this option... can you imagine how many homes would need to be demolished to accomplish this?

As was shown in the report... sometimes longer trains give better value for money, sometimes it's DD trains...

So I keep going back to my question.... why, if their own report shows that sometimes DD's are the best option, don't Network Rail cost ALL options on any given project?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Perhaps I have missed something in the old report but it still seems to me that it was comparing ‘bigger’ DD trains with 16-car conventional trains. Both of these ‘options’ required massive infrastructure changes, either clearances for DD or junction repositioning etc. for longer trains. Given subsequent experience with cost inflation, disruption during works and new problems emerging during implementation I suspect that the estimates are not worth the paper that they are written on for a current assessment.

It does not appear that any consideration was given to the issue of designing, constructing and funding DD trains for the UK.

Getting back to the hypothetical Hastings-London route it seems obvious to me that it has so many tunnels that enlargement or duplication off them *all* is a non-starter. That is before you consider whether Charing Cross station and Hungerford Bridge could actually be adapted to handle either DD or longer trains.

Returning to my earlier points, what would actually emerge is ‘the art of the possible’. If you think about the South Eastern over the past 50 years it has changed out of all recognition in terms of the end of boat train traffic at Victoria, HS1, 12-car suburban trains, Thameslink, DLR to Lewisham, Greenwich and Woolwich, Crossrail coming, Bromley North becoming a self contained shuttle, Jubilee Line distribution from London Bridge and other factors. In very broad terms quite a bit of suburban traffic has diffused away from Charing Cross in both operational terms and employment location. This has allowed development of longer distance services to Hastings and elsewhere. I think that any foreseeable increase in demand could be met by power supply reinforcement and 12-car operation to Hastings. Possibly a link via Rye and Ashford to HS1 might also be relevant but I don’t want to re-open that tangential debate.

Frankly until someone can come up with a genuine example of a massive point-to-point line haul demand of, say, 10,000 passengers per hour I can’t see the massive expense of DD even being worth exploring as an option. For the avoidance of doubt, adding lots of stations vaguely on the South Coast to lots of stations around London doesn’t fit the bill.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you read the report that was linked to the thread and which I am referring to you will see that the report was compiled on the basis of using DD trains built to the British loading guage

Yes you could do that. But then the problem becomes that DD trains built to our loading gauge aren't going to have that many more seats than single-decker trains, so you'll be buying a micro-fleet of completely custom-designed (and therefore very expensive) trains for not that big an increase in capacity.

Even if the tunnels need widening surely that is cheaper than boring new tunnels running parallel?

I don't know to be honest. My suspicion is that it would be cheaper, but not that much cheaper when you factor in that you still need to line the tunnels and make sure they are strong enough etc. And new tunnels means you don't have the expensive hassle of closing the railway while you're doing it. Of course, a new tunnel also probably gives much greater benefit once it's built, since you now have an extra track!

we are getting to the point that we can no longer push any more trains through the available tracks... there are 3 solutions:

1 Longer trains
2 DD trains
3 doubling of tracks

Actually there are three other possible solutions:

4. Resignalling etc. so you can run trains closer together.
5. Selective grade separation, 4-tracking, new platforms etc. just at the pinch points.
6. Building new lines that take some pressure off the existing lines.

So I keep going back to my question.... why, if their own report shows that sometimes DD's are the best option, don't Network Rail cost ALL options on any given project?

I haven't read the report, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my memory of this thread is that other people have claimed the report doesn't show that DD trains are sometimes the best option; it merely concludes that sometimes they are a better option than running trains longer than 12 cars. Since running trains longer than 12 cars is itself quite problematic, that's not a particularly significant conclusion.

And realistically, when you're costing stuff, you only cost the options that might plausibly turn out to be the best. If - as seems likely - it's very clear upfront that DD trains are not going to be the best option, then there's no point doing detailed costing of them - since doing detailed costing itself costs time and money.

 

[Clip]

And still you {willfully?} miss the point I am making.... the report linked to, whilst clearly being devised with a bias to prove that DD trains are never viable instead proved that sometimes DD trains are the best option...

When compared to lengthening the current trains we have now. Id say in most cases if you were to compare DD trains to boring a new tunnel somewhere then a tunnel would prove the best option but the report doesnt state that does it?

the report has then quietly been forgotten about/ buried. And since then, not once has a project been costed on the basis of considering ALL viable options... ergo as a taxpayer paying for all these projects how can I be sure that my money has been spent to the best possible effect?

Do you ever sit there adn think why the report has now been forgotten about? You know by people with more knowledge about this stuff than you or I?

See my reply above - its the same answer to this one. Im sure if they wasted money on a reoprt of new tunnels compared to DD infrastructure project then a tunnel would come out tops but you still wouldnt accept it

ALL I am saying is that the option should ALWAYS be considered and costed on ANY expansion project.

It's a bit like when we moved from steam... most lines went over to diesel because electrification was considered "too expensive" and yet, now, 50 yrs later there is a push to try and electrify as much as possible as quickly{?} as possible.... I wonder how much money that's wasted over the 50 yrs?

I think youll find that the push to electrify everywhere quickly has been shelved quite quickly as possible with more Bi mode trains than people thought ever possible so maybe you forgot that when writing that sentence but who knows.

 

[MarkyT]

Network Rail have considered double deck to an extent in at least one route study I have read, the document for Wessex. That identified a possible option to include clearance for DD on the LSWR main line from Southampton to Waterloo as part of overhead electrification clearance work should traction system conversion from 3rd rail take place, which was once an aspiration. The DfT had asked NR to look at this in particular to run a fairly limited peak busting double deck commuter express overlay service with a captive fleet on the trunk main line calling at major stations. I think this has realistically been kicked into the long grass along with conversion to AC, at least for a few decades yet.

 

[swt_passenger]

Network Rail have considered double deck to an extent in at least one route study I have read, the document for Wessex. That identified a possible option to include clearance for DD on the LSWR main line from Southampton to Waterloo as part of overhead electrification clearance work should traction system conversion from 3rd rail take place, which was once an aspiration. The DfT had asked NR to look at this in particular to run a fairly limited peak busting double deck commuter express overlay service with a captive fleet on the trunk main line calling at major stations. I think this has realistically been kicked into the long grass along with DC conversion, at least for a few decades yet.

I mentioned that it had cropped up in a couple of route studies a few days ago, (and had checked the Wessex one to make doubly sure), but it doesn’t seem to suit the OP’s personal insistence that it never gets considered at all...

Presume you meant to write AC conversion?

 

[MarkyT]

I mentioned that it had cropped up in a couple of route studies a few days ago, (and had checked the Wessex one to make doubly sure), but it doesn’t seem to suit the OP’s personal insistence that it never gets considered at all...

Presume you meant to write AC conversion?

Probably! depends whether the phrase was meant from or to. I've clarified (I think!).

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I mentioned that it had cropped up in a couple of route studies a few days ago, (and had checked the Wessex one to make doubly sure), but it doesn’t seem to suit the OP’s personal insistence that it never gets considered at all...

Presume you meant to write AC conversion?

ok fair enough so it has been considered at least once.... but this is the first time that that study has been mentioned, so in my innocence it was fair for me to assume that it hadn't ever been considered for a particular project...

as an aside... why was the DD conversion shelved? was it that it was linked to the AC conversion project, and because that conversion was shelved then the DD project was shelved? or were the 2 decisions taken seperately?

 

[Aictos]

As pointed out above it is simply not economical to run double decker trains in the UK using the existing infrastructure HOWEVER if it was not for the fact that HS2 have plans to run off the HS2 route and as a result need classic compatible stock then we COULD have seen High Speed Double Decker trains on HS2 instead like the TGV EuroDuplex used between Paris and Strasbourg which would have been more viable as HS2 is new built.

 

[MarkyT]

... why was the DD conversion shelved? was it that it was linked to the AC conversion project, and because that conversion was shelved then the DD project was shelved? or were the 2 decisions taken seperately?

Yes the work was fundamentally linked to the electrification project because structure clearances would have to be improved for the wires anyway. While doing that, replacing a lot of over-bridge decks at considerable expense and disruption, the possibility of obtaining greater clearance for larger rolling stock could also be considered, which might include larger freight containers and allow DD passenger cars on a limited network, if suitable rolling stock could be obtained and operated on a useful range of longer distance commuter services within the specially gauge enhanced area. Structure clearance work has been a major problem for GWML electrification costs and timescales, and that is on a railway with fairly generous clearances already. As a stand alone project DD would not likely fly, because only a limited number of trains could be DD, with only the main line from say Waterloo to Southampton wired, at first at least, with most trains dual voltage to continue to run on to final destinations using DC power over unaltered infrastructure. When you get out into the wilds of Dorset the service density doesn't really warrant the major investment and seeing as most trains at the extremities work through to and from London, the DD stock can only be used on short workings or portions that get decoupled and don't go through to the country terminus.

 

[MarkyT]

... we COULD have seen High Speed Double Decker trains on HS2 instead like the TGV EuroDuplex used between Paris and Strasbourg which would have been more viable as HS2 is new built.

If the HS2 network gets fully built out as planned, it is still perfectly plausible that some kind of double deck captive operation may be proposed, at or beyond Phase 2, where justified by growing demand.