Double-decker trains could hit Britain’s railways to ease overcrowding

[Emyr]

or you could have seating upstairs and cattle class (standing) downstairs

Or 1+1 with a very wide aisle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the industry is incapable of even providing normal 2/3 car trains where required, and which used to be provided (Sheffield peak hour service), sending out a single car 153 instead, concepts like double deck trains are beyond fantasy.

There's little case for double decker on any lines where you could extend trains easily with only the need for new rolling stock and maybe platform extensions. They would be relevant on routes where trains are already 12-car and full.

Neil

 

[chubs]

I would have thought 'stepping down', into what is the space below platform level, would help in making double-deckers more feasible. However, that leaves the question of where to put all the underframe gubbins...

The Dutch have managed it this way with DD EMU's for years.

Let's not forget double deck trains have been tested before on Southern and Virgin. Both were disasters! Lack of ventilation when power cuts out. No room for standees. No room for luggage (also seen on TGV Duplex). Lack of space for disabled people.

This is replacing comfort with cattle trucks.
If this happens prices should go down.

Rubbish. The huge fleet of Dutch DD EMU's are vastly superior to anything we have on our railway. Huge doors and stairways means nobody misses their stops and dwell times are quick. There is enough room for disabled spaces near the doors.

OK, the same trains probably aren't suitable on our loading gauge but the fact remains they are excellent trains.

 

[sprinterguy]

The Dutch have managed it this way with DD EMU's for years.

I think that most (all?) European double deck stock is arranged this way. Certainly, all the German and Swiss double deck trains that I have travelled on have had steps down to the lower deck from the vestibules.

 

[chickenwings12]

those "express flyover" things don't make any sense, why would you want to bypass basingstoke or woking? they're busy so wouldn't all trains stop there..

i call bs on the dailymail, don't think they know what they're talking about :roll:

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If additional entrances and exits are added to stations, it would help psychologically to get people to spread along the platform. IIRC Wimbledon is having another footbridge and entrance added for this very purpose, as the main entrance is simply rammed!

It wouldn't only help psychologically - it'd be massively more convenient for many passengers where stations currently have only entrance right at one end of a platform.

I would say that when I travel by train into central London, the distance I have to walk to the train is almost doubled by the fact that the local station only has one entrance at what for me is the 'wrong' end of a 12-carriage-length platform. That means I have to walk the entire length of the platform (outside the station) to get into the station - and then I have to walk back down most of the length of the platform again - this time inside the station - to get to the bit of the train I normally want to be in. I'm sure I can't be the only person in that situation by a long way. Multiple entrances at stations would be great for avoiding that kind of situation. In my case, I can think of a few times when that inconvenience has caused me to choose other methods of travel for some shorter journeys.

EDIT: And by the way - new entrance at Wimbledon? I'd heard it was to have another footbridge, but is it really getting a new entrance? If that's true and the new entrance will be midway along the platforms - ie. not where the current two entrances are - that would be great news.

 

[CC 72100]

I think that most (all?) European double deck stock is arranged this way. Certainly, all the German and Swiss double deck trains that I have travelled on have had steps down to the lower deck from the vestibules.

Indeed - one the French stuff I've used, when sat downstairs (albeit in this case this was on 'metro' style seating, maybe different seating will be at a different height) looking out of the window, the top half of the window would be above the platform, the bottom half of the window all you would see is platform. When pulling into stations you just see feet.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rame_MI09_du_RER_A_-_IMG_1569.jpg

This is the lower deck - the stairs lead of to the door area which is one-floor only and level with the platform at stations.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is an article from the Daily Mail, so perhaps needs to be taken with a (very) large pinch of salt, but I thought was worthy of discussion. I am curious as to which Network Rail reports the article is referring – Presumably a draft Route Utilisation Strategy or somesuch.

The article you quoted includes this:

Another report includes a proposal for the first new rail terminus in London since Marylebone was built in 1899 to connect to the Anglia rail network, as well as more platforms at Liverpool Street Station.

That is interesting, and, unlike most of the rest of the article - doesn't appear to come from the Wessex RUS. Does anyone have any idea what this could be referring to?

 

[NSEFAN]

That is interesting, and, unlike most of the rest of the article - doesn't appear to come from the Wessex RUS. Does anyone have any idea what this could be referring to?

IIRC it's the Anglia Route Study, which suggests a terminus in the Shoreditch area to allow for increased numbers of terminating West Anglia services.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/anglia-route-study/

Of course, if Broad Street had been retained, doing such a thing would be easier

 

[aylesbury]

I have used double deck trains in Toronto not a bad experience but they have the luxury of an increased loading gauge. Can't see them being introduced in the UK due to the cost and disruption to services .The answer is to update the signalling so as to allow more trains to run as they do in Japan and get a quick turnround in terminus platforms.Extra track cannot be built in London due to space restrictions so the above will have to be the answer.

 

[DownSouth]

I would have thought 'stepping down', into what is the space below platform level, would help in making double-deckers more feasible. However, that leaves the question of where to put all the underframe gubbins...

You'd take the benefit of over 50 years of experience with the Sydney Trains double-deck units (where they use high platforms like in Britain) and put everything in the same spots. No leadership or innovation required, just a healthy dose of Ctrl-C Ctrl-V.

It is true that a 25kV transformer would be required for UK-spec double-deck EMUs, but this would easily be dealt with by reducing the number of Australian-spec air conditioning units by one and using the vacated space for the transformer.

A fundamental issue is that double deckers take much longer to load and unload, reducing capacity at termini, and reducing the benefit of the extra deck even further.

This is pure bunkum.

Widening the gauge will cost a fortune, but lowering the track less so. It's not a small job but there have been plenty of examples of the work being carried out to install overhead catenary. When third rail is eventually replaced by overhead caternary they should look at lowering the track under tunnels and bridges.

The solution to this is to future-proof every tunnel, bridge and station when it comes up for the routine renewal work that is required just to keep it in use, essentially allowing operational and capital works to be done in one go with a resultant reduction in overheads.

This is the approach that has been taken to preparing the Adelaide-Melbourne route for 1800 metre trains, gradually extending each crossing loop from 1500m when the track came up for renewal anyway. The result is that there are now just two pinch points that are still restricting freight trains to 1500 metres long, and it is now at the point that some careful timetabling could allow the longer trains to start rolling if there was a need to do so. This approach is also being taken to preparing the same route for future double-stacked container trains - every new/replacement bridge over the line is being built to the height needed for double-stacked trains, so eventually it will get to the point where the only obstacle will be the six tunnels in the Adelaide Hills.

Platform protrusion is an issue, and will result in a UK gauge double decker either only being wide enough for 2+1 seating, or will result in existing stock having an unacceptably large gap.

In the case of platforms, it shouldn't be beyond the engineers of Great Britain (assuming the 'Great' bit still applies) to produce a protruding platform extension which could be fitted whenever a station platform on a high usage line has renewal work done with the permanent platform being cut back or the line shifted away. Then once a suitably high proportion of the route has gradually had the loading gauge enlarged, the platform extensions could be removed in a short closure period and slab-sided double-deck trains introduced.

 

[muddythefish]

Y
In the case of platforms, it shouldn't be beyond the engineers of Great Britain (assuming the 'Great' bit still applies)

Yes it does.

 

[starrymarkb]

I think that most (all?) European double deck stock is arranged this way. Certainly, all the German and Swiss double deck trains that I have travelled on have had steps down to the lower deck from the vestibules.

Swiss stock is level boarding to the lower deck at most platforms as their platforms are lower then UIC. At UIC height platforms used by ICEs/TGVs there is a step down from the platform into the train.

Mind you a long term solution would have been to fit retractable steps to UK stock to bridge the gap. This is pretty much standard on the continent but the only UK stock with them is the Pendolino

 

[LateThanNever]

Indeed - one the French stuff I've used, when sat downstairs (albeit in this case this was on 'metro' style seating, maybe different seating will be at a different height) looking out of the window, the top half of the window would be above the platform, the bottom half of the window all you would see is platform. When pulling into stations you just see feet.

Ah, but they are French feet!
Cannot see how there would ever be enough room for double deck trains in the UK loading gauge. If they were introduced the necessarily cramped conditions would undoubtedly increase dwell times. Introducing stairs is also a retrograde step - look at all the effort put into trying to eliminate steps in buses. Better and I'd suggest, cheaper to maximise train frequency and length.

 

[bnm]

it shouldn't be beyond the engineers of Great Britain (assuming the 'Great' bit still applies)

Of course it does. It means 'large' and always has done. Refers to the island in comparison with 'Lesser Britain' or Brittany. It's never meant 'important' or 'noble'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that most (all?) European double deck stock is arranged this way. Certainly, all the German and Swiss double deck trains that I have travelled on have had steps down to the lower deck from the vestibules.

Switzerland has the entrance on the lower deck, with the upper deck reached via steps. This is because their platforms are quite low. Some German stock is like that as well.

Neil

 

[starrymarkb]

Switzerland has the entrance on the lower deck, with the upper deck reached via steps. This is because their platforms are quite low. Some German stock is like that as well.

Neil

IME German DD stock has one door per rake at the lower platform height for wheelchair access.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Of course it does. It means 'large' and always has done. Refers to the island in comparison with 'Lesser Britain' or Brittany. It's never meant 'important' or 'noble'.

It's also needed to avoid confusion with New Britain.

Are they any lines with no tunnels or overhead bridges?
As they could become a testbed for double deckers.

 

[sprinterguy]

Switzerland has the entrance on the lower deck, with the upper deck reached via steps. This is because their platforms are quite low. Some German stock is like that as well.

Neil

Ah fair enough, must have completely missed that detail. Would have sworn there were steps down, but it's not something I was really looking out for at the time.

 

[gordonthemoron]

they could run double deckers on HS1, unfortunately there is no demand

 

[317666]

Germany has a mix of low-entry and high-entry double deckers, which generally depends on which part of the country with some exceptions. One common thing throughout is that the driving trailers are all low-entry, these often have the entire bottom deck as tip-up seating for bikes and wheelchairs. The high-entry coaches have very wide doors so dwell times aren't really a problem.

In Belgium, the stock is all high-entry with a folding step for lower platforms. The coach with tip-up seats on the bottom deck has a separate single-leaf door at a lower height which I think can only be opened by the guard:

http://www.vagonweb.cz/fotogalerie/foto/201202/M6-BD-8272-010-BRM-23-7-09.jpg

 

[dgl]

Surely it will reduce overcrowding by being used on 25kV OHLE equipped lines, well when the commuters on board get a taste of 25kV (there will surely be not enough clearance or any at all between the train and the OHLE) there will shortly be a lot less people commuting.

 

[swt_passenger]

those "express flyover" things don't make any sense, why would you want to bypass basingstoke or woking? they're busy so wouldn't all trains stop there..

The flyovers aren't to bypass the stations, they are to grade separate the busy junctions immediately adjacent to the stations. Newspaper fail as usual...

 

[fandroid]

The Wessex Route Study indicates that the dimensions of normal European DD stock has been studied, hence they came to the conclusion that a custom design would be needed for UK loading gauge. By the latter, It's reasonable to assume that they mean the width available at platform height, not the vertical clearance. Whatever floor dimensions that gives, they estimate that a 9x26m DD train will give an extra 50% floor area over a 10x23m train. The routes discussed are Waterloo to Woking and Basingstoke with another option to extend to Southampton. All DD services would be restricted to peak hours only.

My guess is that they would envisage raising height clearances. That seems likely as they throw in a big doubt on the extension to Southampton due to the tunnels (at least three?) between there and Basingstoke, whereas there aren't any (or maybe a very short one near Deepcut) from Basingstoke to London. If they ran semi-fast and only in the peaks, then the number of stops would be quite limited, and so dwell times would not be so critical. I have travelled on DD trains in the Rhineland (Germany) several times and they can be absolutely rammed in the peaks. Dwell times can be big too, but that's because they cater for multiple intermediate trips. At Dusseldorf, the trains normally offload 80% and then reload. That won't happen anywhere in the peaks on the SW mainline. I doubt that terminus dwell times are an issue. For full-length Class 444s and 450s it often seems to take ages to clear an incoming trainload off the platform at Waterloo, and many passengers are happy to wait for the crowds to disperse before getting up and out. What might be needed at Waterloo is enlargement of the stairs to the mid-platform subway (escalators even?).

 

[NotATrainspott]

Rather nicely there exists a fully fleshed-out proposal to gauge-clear a National Rail line in London to take double-deck trains, including not only the effect upon the railway itself but the environmental effect upon the surrounding area. Unfortunately that proposal was for the HS1-HS2 connection and it was the single most expensive part of the entire scheme per kilometre and was vehemently opposed by the people who lived around it. Not only would there need to be vertical clearance, but it would also be necessary to replace any railway infrastructure that used the same gauge limitations such as entire bridges the railway runs over. Gauge-clearing empty parts of the country is one task; gauge-clearing the busiest railways in the country all the way into their Zone 1 terminus is quite another.

 

[route:oxford]

The flyovers aren't to bypass the stations, they are to grade separate the busy junctions immediately adjacent to the stations. Newspaper fail as usual...

The Liberal Democrats in Oxford are currently campaigning against the "flying junction" mentioned in the relevant utilisation strategy.

"Ruin lives", "Destroy Port Meadow", "Think of the children!" etc, etc.

 

[matacaster]

doesn't 3+2 seating reduce standing space?

It does, it also reduces the seat width at a time when passenger girth is considerably greater on average than it used to be. I've travelled on double-deckers in US. They are ok IF you have their loading gauge, even so, getting on and off is rather slower.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely block signalling would be a lot cheaper way to increase capacity ?.

Imo - Network Rail should have been working towards increasing the loading guage for years, i.e. increasing the heights of bridges and OH equipment when it is being replaced at a relatively small additional cost.

They have, but, I think, only if the cost was reasonable. The other problem is to what size they increased those bridges etc to. eg They have often increased things to W12, but not to (at least) UIC or even better Eurotunnel which is probably needed for comfortable double deck. NR seem to cheese-pare the insides of tunnels a bit to suit a new train type rather than boldly make a once and for all major route clearance to a gauge which will never need further enhancement work [yes I know it all costs money].

 

[swt_passenger]

I firmly believe the only reason the possibility of double deck trains appears in the draft is so that they can say they've looked at every possibility. I'd seriously expect it to be 'not recommended' in the final version.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They have, but, I think, only if the cost was reasonable. The other problem is to what size they increased those bridges etc to. eg They have often increased things to W12...

Even then, W12 gauge is no higher than W6/8/10. It is a 100mm wider gauge than W10, that is all. W10 provides for the square nature of containers, but does not provide any additional height compared to a normal coach on its own.

Hence progression of W10/W12 clearance is of little or no relevance to double deck trains - unless anyone wants them to be of rectangular cross-section like a container?

 

[B&W]

Designs for DD trains would have to change a bit for the UK I feel. We use the French Cote D Azur DDs a lot in the Nice area. When the cruise liners are in Ville France sue Mer (several times a week) even the trains with two or more units get rammed on the lower decks, stairs, entrances and it routinely takes 5/10mins to load/unload at VFsM, Nice Ville MC Cannes etc

Brian

 

[Mutant Lemming]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

I'm surprised no one has mentioned these yet.