Double deck trains - again ...

[Shrop]

Double deck trains have been discussed on this forum several times, but I can't see any answers to my question, which is simply to ask whether any routes have actually been costed for providing double deck trains?

People on this forum (unlike some journalists and many members of the public) will know that this would be no easy task as tunnels are too small, platforms too high, tracks too close together etc. However, focusing on just one route at a time (as we do when considering electrification), I wonder if any routes (eg. HS1, WCML, MML, ECML, sections of XC, or "just" some suburban routes), have been approximately costed for providing double deck trains? It would be interesting to know how such costs might compare per mile, against the cost of electrification (for example).

As a starter I would guess that London to Bristol might be cheaper due to the tracks having already been set apart when providing for HSTs in the 1970s, and some routes would cost less due to having fewer tunnels. So have actual costs per route or per route mile already been discussed?

 

[Nym]

Too high for too little benefit.

You've mentioned XC here, maybe running trains that are as long as they used to be would be a much better start than altering 1000mi of infrastructure.

For indicative, you need to look at the price per mile of something like HS2, WCRM or other similar high disruption projects. You're likely to be in the >£1bn/route-mile region.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think the DfT double-decker trains report of 2007 included an attempt to cost the infrastructure changes needed on a few routes around London, eg the Brighton Line. It quickly concluded they were off the scale. They also did a comparison with other options and decided that in the areas of the former SR where 12 x 20m trains were the norm, an equivalent capacity increase would be achieved by running 16 car trains.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2007-12-12/debates/0712135000010/RollingStockProcurement

The Department considered with industry the use of double decker trains as an option for increasing capacity in preparation for issuing the recent White Paper “Delivering a Sustainable Railway”. The conclusions are presented in a report “Preliminary Evaluation of Double Deck and Extra Long Train Operations” prepared by Network Rail and published on the Department’s website. They suggest that the constraints of the UK network make double decker trains less cost-effective than other options and that this is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2012-06-28/debates/12062867000026/Double-DeckerTrains

A report prepared by Network Rail in 2007 concluded that the introduction of double-decker trains on the current UK rail network would require extensive modification to structures and stations and was not economically viable.

Although such trains operate in a number of European countries, the larger loading gauge used in continental Europe allows the use of taller, wider trains than is possible in the UK.

 

[yorkie]

See also these other threads:

Why did the UK not pursue double deck trains?

I’m assuming this photo is genuine - apparently at London Charing Cross in the late 1940s. Given some infrastructure on certain routes appears to have been able to cope at that time (bridges, tunnels etc) why do we not have these today?

www.railforums.co.uk

Could Double Deck trains be viable in the UK?

Not sure if I've started this thread in the right place but here goes:- What exactly is it that stops trains from being double deck in the UK? Are the bridges really too low for even "lowbridge" designs of DD carriages? or is it, like bendybuses, UK resistance to "strange foreign ideas"?

www.railforums.co.uk

My idea for double deck trains on the West Coast Main Line

Moderator note: this post was erroneously posted in https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/government-announces-independent-review-into-hs2-programme.189492/page-25 ; we wish to remind members to please ensure speculative posts are posted in the Speculative Ideas section, thanks! :) I still feel...

www.railforums.co.uk

Why can't future train orders be for double deck trains?

This is a point that my Dad keeps bringing up, which is why is it that any new UK trains orders are for longer trains rather than double deck trains as they have in Europe? I have explained to my Dad many times that I do not think that the UK rail infrastructure would be able to take double...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[swt_passenger]

I’ve attached a pdf copy of the DfT Double Decker Report. There‘s a section 8.3 starting in page 40 that explains how they looked at infrastructure costs in a broad way.

I reckon there have been references to this report in threads dating back to 2009, and I also believe anyone reading the whole report should quickly realise that Double Decker trains are a complete non-starter on the existing network.

Cost Estimation
Description of Process
The aim of this overall assessment of the practicality and impact of the introduction of
the two train types was to scale the likely costs against other current activity. Obviously
from the initial level of the assessment it is not practical to produce a scheme or project
estimate or price. However, to achieve a suitable scale reference was made to current
project estimates which include all the elements which make up the costs to provide a
suitably cost for comparison purposes between options. These assessments were done
in two groups namely a collation of repetitive items for which a range of similar activities
are grouped into generic blocks of activity and then given a common value. For other
larger items then some assessment of scale and scope was then made and then the
value adapted appropriately. A general allowance was added to each route for scope
items not directly investigated (e.g. depots) and for other lesser works that are likely to
be required as part of what would become major route upgrades. For all the routes a
very general allowance was made for disruption (possession) costs.

 

[Harpo]

I experienced a double deck TGV into Paris from the south. I was downstairs at the bulkhead end so there was only one exit just beyond the luggage rack at the far end. It took 10 minutes plus to get out to the platform. No issue at a terminal (unless you have a tight connection) but totally unworkable at a major intermediate.

 

[signed]

but totally unworkable at a major intermediate.

No, absolutely not

TGV Duplex are used no issues, and basically nobody misses stops because of boarding slowness (I would expect that to make news), with stops at extremely major intermediaries like Lyon, Marseille, Rennes with sometimes up to half-trainload passenger volume to exchange.

Termini are very different as everyone disembarks so you have a airplaine-like bottleneck.

Stop times are modulated accordingly, as long as you stand up a few minutes early, you'll have no issues.

 

[AngusH]

can someone double check something in that report.

On page 58 there are "Individual Items for ‘GB’ and ‘GC’ Stock (Tunnels)"

It appears that what appears to be a price column is actually the distance
in yards converted into meters.

The total at the bottom appears to be unrelated to the numbers above.

Am I misinterpreting it somehow?


Screen shot of the table in question:

 

[eldomtom2]

I’ve attached a pdf copy of the DfT Double Decker Report. There‘s a section 8.3 starting in page 40 that explains how they looked at infrastructure costs in a broad way.

Very interesting report. What's notable is that it only looks at Europe, whereas Japan for instance runs double-deckers on outer-suburban routes that manage to squeeze in two decks at just over 4 metres tall. I presume they do this by compromising a bit on headroom, which raises the question - why did the report insist on at least 1920mm headroom and not consider the possibility of reducing it, when, as the report notes, vehicles such as the top deck of double-decker buses have less than 1920mm headroom?

 

[Gloster]

can someone double check something in that report.

On page 58 there are "Individual Items for ‘GB’ and ‘GC’ Stock (Tunnels)"

It appears that what appears to be a price column is actually the distance
in yards converted into meters.

Am I misinterpreting it somehow?


Screen shot of the table in question:

View attachment 170250

I think that the table as I see it here is poorly set out. 7989 metres appears to be the correct total for the lengths when converted to metric and the 160-280 at the bottom right is the total price in £m as it is the length multiplied by the two price limits.

 

[AngusH]

I agree, that total distance seems to be the sum of the price column.

I suspect that this probably had a column 'm' for meters before someone thought it was price and added a pound sign to the column heading.

Alternatively all of the other tables have a price column and someone got mixed up.

Undoubtably a clerical error, but a very unlucky one.
It could be badly misleading, because it suggests the cost of upgrading one tunnel might cost 2 billion pounds.

 

[brad465]

However, focusing on just one route at a time (as we do when considering electrification), I wonder if any routes (eg. HS1, WCML, MML, ECML, sections of XC, or "just" some suburban routes), have been approximately costed for providing double deck trains?

Is HS1's infrastructure already sufficient for double-decker trains? Southeastern Highspeed wouldn't be able to use them except for any dedicated Ashford-St Pancras only, but if the UIC GC gauge of HS1 permits double decker, then the cost would only be whatever rolling stock Eurostar, or another operator who gets permission to run onto the continent, might order of double decker standard.

 

[AngusH]

I wondered that question too.

But the document gives this statement:

The CTRL main line has been constructed to the mandated UIC ‘GC’
Reference Profile size and the larger 4650mm vehicle height could be operated
on this route.

Page 9

 

[MotCO]

I agree, that total distance seems to be the sum of the price column.

I suspect that this probably had a column 'm' for meters before someone thought it was price and added a pound sign to the column heading.

Alternatively all of the other tables have a price column and someone got mixed up.

Undoubtably a clerical error, but a very unlucky one.
It could be badly misleading, because it suggests the cost of upgrading one tunnel might cost 2 billion pounds.

Unless someone reckons it costs £0.91m per yard

 

[Falcon1200]

As a starter I would guess that London to Bristol might be cheaper due to the tracks having already been set apart when providing for HSTs in the 1970s

Tracks were not, anywhere, set apart for HSTs, AFAIK. At places like Didcot trains pass through at 125mph on standard spacing.

 

[43096]

Tracks were not, anywhere, set apart for HSTs, AFAIK. At places like Didcot trains pass through at 125mph on standard spacing.

Correct. It was nothing to do with HSTs - the East Coast did not have simialr work done - and everything to do with legacy of Brunel's broad gauge.

 

[Dennyboy]

Double deck trains have been discussed on this forum several times, but I can't see any answers to my question, which is simply to ask whether any routes have actually been costed for providing double deck trains?

People on this forum (unlike some journalists and many members of the public) will know that this would be no easy task as tunnels are too small, platforms too high, tracks too close together etc. However, focusing on just one route at a time (as we do when considering electrification), I wonder if any routes (eg. HS1, WCML, MML, ECML, sections of XC, or "just" some suburban routes), have been approximately costed for providing double deck trains? It would be interesting to know how such costs might compare per mile, against the cost of electrification (for example).

As a starter I would guess that London to Bristol might be cheaper due to the tracks having already been set apart when providing for HSTs in the 1970s, and some routes would cost less due to having fewer tunnels. So have actual costs per route or per route mile already been discussed?

Some routes (eg Trans-Pennine, Felixstowe--Nuneaton etc) have been considered for Double-Stacked Container Freight. Whilst these can be partly unloaded in the event of emergency line-closures, the Rail Regulator won't entertain Rolling Stock that is captive to selected routes and not even Electric Stock. Why not? Because all stock, irresp' of propulsion, must be capable of being hauled on 101% of UK's infrastructure inc' non-electrified track with its neat fitting arch bridges & tunnels. All that said, a moderate increase in height and contour of train roofs probably could be accommodated once Diesel Only routes cease to exist. That is owing due to the surplus clearance factored into the siting of Overhead Line Equipment. As at present, a semi-stacked Double-Deck configuration with adequate increase in door-provision that also doesn't excessively compromise standing-capacity is perfectly achievable within existing constraints. Take and adapt an approach that was adopted by an outbid HS2 Rolling Stock contestant ie Andreas Vogler's Aeroliner300.

 

[Trainbike46]

Very interesting report. What's notable is that it only looks at Europe, whereas Japan for instance runs double-deckers on outer-suburban routes that manage to squeeze in two decks at just over 4 metres tall. I presume they do this by compromising a bit on headroom, which raises the question - why did the report insist on at least 1920mm headroom and not consider the possibility of reducing it, when, as the report notes, vehicles such as the top deck of double-decker buses have less than 1920mm headroom?

I might be slightly selfish here as I am over 1.92m, but 1.92m/~6'3" is already too low and significantly "compromising" on headroom - any further "compromise" would be even worse.

On top of that, Height at the heighest point isn't the only important factor, the profile of the space available also matters - the shape of most UK loading gauges is so that, due to curvature at the top, any train that would have to fit within current loading gauge would have a very cramped top deck.

tbh, just extend the trains where the capacity is needed, potentially using ASDO.

 

[zwk500]

Is HS1's infrastructure already sufficient for double-decker trains? Southeastern Highspeed wouldn't be able to use them except for any dedicated Ashford-St Pancras only, but if the UIC GC gauge of HS1 permits double decker, then the cost would only be whatever rolling stock Eurostar, or another operator who gets permission to run onto the continent, might order of double decker standard.

Yes, but not if you use domestic profile platforms. HS1 is GC compliant on the main route, with GB+ compliance via Ashford.

 

[Wolfie]

I might be slightly selfish here as I am over 1.92m, but 1.92m/~6'3" is already too low and significantly "compromising" on headroom - any further "compromise" would be even worse.

On top of that, Height at the heighest point isn't the only important factor, the profile of the space available also matters - the shape of most UK loading gauges is so that, due to curvature at the top, any train that would have to fit within current loading gauge would have a very cramped top deck.

tbh, just extend the trains where the capacity is needed, potentially using ASDO.

I just looked. The mean height for men in UK is 1.75m and Japan 1.71m - l was surprised that the difference is so small. I couldn't easily find information for the standard deviation but did note comments that 1.75m and above is regarded as tall by Japanese standards.

 

[mike57]

but totally unworkable at a major intermediate.

French TGV's stop considerably less than a lot of our 'inter city' services, where the tendency has been to increase stops. Intermediate station dwell times also seem to be longer than in the UK, not an issue if there is 1 hour + between stops, which is the case on a lot of French TGVs, but when you are stopping every 15 to 20 minutes it becomes an issue.

A lot of routes are running with trains which are shorter than even current max length capacity, so the quick fix is to actually order enough rolling stock to allow for some growth, and on routes like TPE North you still have some 3 car units running on the main Leeds Manchester axis.

The other issue is the resticted dimensions below platform level in the UK, as double deckers use this space.

The level of reconstruction which would be required would mean that it would probably be easier to build complete new lines, and if you doing that you may as well build them much bigger, so why not reintroduce 7ft gauge (Mike57 ducks)

 

[Dennyboy]

Even with a width reduction below platform-height to (say) 2+1 abreast, and with standing capacity minimally compromised, 3 abreast upstairs with sunken side aisles needn't pose too modest a gain to be worth the investment. Ideally the lower deck would be slope-accessed from end doors and step-accessed from a centre door whereas the split upper saloon/s would be reached via short stairs.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I have some vague memory of a RAIL article about a Sea Containers' bid for the LSWR franchise. Think that was proposing an investigation into the possibility of double-deck trains (along with a very ambitious rebuild of Clapham Junction). Obviously this bid was unsuccessful, and I've no idea how far they went with their "investigation". Presumably they could only get so far before they realised just how difficult and disruptive it would be.

 

[zwk500]

Even with a width reduction below platform-height to (say) 2+1 abreast, and with standing capacity minimally compromised, 3 abreast upstairs with sunken side aisles needn't pose too modest a gain to be worth the investment. Ideally the lower deck would be slope-accessed from end doors and step-accessed from a centre door whereas the split upper saloon/s would be reached via short stairs.

The length you'd lose suggests you'd be gaining a very marginal number of seats against going to a 2+3 single-deck configuration.

 

[Dennyboy]

Double deck trains have been discussed on this forum several times, but I can't see any answers to my question, which is simply to ask whether any routes have actually been costed for providing double deck trains?

People on this forum (unlike some journalists and many members of the public) will know that this would be no easy task as tunnels are too small, platforms too high, tracks too close together etc. However, focusing on just one route at a time (as we do when considering electrification), I wonder if any routes (eg. HS1, WCML, MML, ECML, sections of XC, or "just" some suburban routes), have been approximately costed for providing double deck trains? It would be interesting to know how such costs might compare per mile, against the cost of electrification (for example).

As a starter I would guess that London to Bristol might be cheaper due to the tracks having already been set apart when providing for HSTs in the 1970s, and some routes would cost less due to having fewer tunnels. So have actual costs per route or per route mile already been discussed?

All Rolling Stock has to be capable of being cascaded to other regions (Electric Stock v Unelectrified Routes aside) otherwise no train operator would buy or lease the fleet. That said, Double Deck Trains need only be Full-Electrification away from being admitted to any of the UK Rail Infrastructure. How? Because I reckon that the Overhead Line Clearances (from train roofs) is sufficiently surplus to allow minimally taller trains in the future. Diesel-Only Routes are the culprit in restricting the Loading Gauge/Structure Gauge of all stock (which may require to be diverted during track maintainance or emergencies). Upgrades to Containerised Freight like-supports the demand for taller passenger stock.

 

[zwk500]

All Rolling Stock has to be capable of being cascaded to other regions (Electric Stock v Unelectrified Routes aside) otherwise no train operator would buy or lease the fleet.

I'm not sure this tracks. There are many fleets that have never successfully cascaded.

That said, Double Deck Trains need only be Full-Electrification away from being admitted to any of the UK Rail Infrastructure. How? Because I reckon that the Overhead Line Clearances (from train roofs) is sufficiently surplus to allow minimally taller trains in the future. Diesel-Only Routes are the culprit in restricting the Loading Gauge/Structure Gauge of all stock (which may require to be diverted during track maintainance or emergencies).

Although the standard wire height of 4.7m is higher than the typical double deck stock height of 4.6m, that would be very close to the train. And the UK OLE wire height can reduce to a minimum of 4.165m though, which is shorter than even a TGV Duplex (4.3m). So OLE on it's own doesn't clear Double-Deck trains.

Upgrades to Containerised Freight like-supports the demand for taller passenger stock.

There is no difference between the centreline height of W12 vs W6. Freight gauging is all in the 'shoulders' of the gauge.

 

[stevieinselby]

Because all stock, irresp' of propulsion, must be capable of being hauled on 101% of UK's infrastructure inc' non-electrified track with its neat fitting arch bridges & tunnels.

Is that actually the case? We've heard elsewhere on the forums a number of times that class 158s can't be used on the West Highland Line because of clearance issues, and I had understood that Pacers couldn't run on any electrified line with a third rail.

 

[The exile]

No, absolutely not

TGV Duplex are used no issues, and basically nobody misses stops because of boarding slowness (I would expect that to make news), with stops at extremely major intermediaries like Lyon, Marseille, Rennes with sometimes up to half-trainload passenger volume to exchange.

Termini are very different as everyone disembarks so you have a airplaine-like bottleneck.

Stop times are modulated accordingly, as long as you stand up a few minutes early, you'll have no issues.

ISTR that the Munich S-Bahn briefly experimented with double deck stock as a solution to overcrowding through the City tunnel and thought better of it. DD stock is not suited for services with frequent stops and high levels of churn at those stops. Munich is of course now building a second s-bahn tunnel at a cost which must surely indicate how unsuitable DD stock would have been.

 

[signed]

DD stock is not suited for services with frequent stops and high levels of churn at those stops.

I don't know Munich S-bahn enough, but 2-level MI2N and other variants have ran on every RER line bar B for 20+ years. It is indeed a tougher sale on those kind of lines, but I would argue they work, as they do on the busiest RER A. Of course, a second tunnel is the long-term solution.

 

[Jim the Jim]

Double-deckers have all sorts of passenger disadvantages. It takes longer to get on and off, it's harder to travel with luggage, it's restrictive for anyone who struggles with stairs, it's harder to move between coaches looking for seats or the toilet ...

Extra capacity is the only benefit and I'm not sure I'd trade that for everything else.