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

[anme]

Moderator note: this post was erroneously posted in https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...dent-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 the answer is to run double decker trains on the west coast main line. Sure, we will need to do some building work, but it will be much cheaper and quicker to raise a few bridges than build a whole new line.

 

[HSTEd]

I still feel the answer is to run double decker trains on the west coast main line. Sure, we will need to do some building work, but it will be much cheaper and quicker to raise a few bridges than build a whole new line.

Unfortunately no it won't.

You would need to cut down all the overhead wiring and rebuild it, raise most of the bridges and likely rebuild most of the platform coping.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still feel the answer is to run double decker trains on the west coast main line. Sure, we will need to do some building work, but it will be much cheaper and quicker to raise a few bridges than build a whole new line.

That's almost comedic in its ignorance. The line would need to be completely rebuilt including all platforms, OHLE, many bridges etc.

Building a complete new line to UIC gauge is certain to be cheaper.

 

[anme]

That's almost comedic in its ignorance. The line would need to be completely rebuilt including all platforms, OHLE, many bridges etc.

Building a complete new line to UIC gauge is certain to be cheaper.

No you wouldn't. You are making big assumptions about the design of double decker trains. You can easily fit two decks within the current loading gauge. Most people don't stand for the whole of their journey - they sit. All the space above their heads is wasted.

If they have to bend down a bit when boarding and leaving the train, isn't that a small price to pay for saving 100 billion pounds?

 

[6Gman]

No you wouldn't. You are making big assumptions about the design of double decker trains. You can easily fit two decks within the current loading gauge. Most people don't stand for the whole of their journey - they sit. All the space above their heads is wasted.

If they have to bend down a bit when boarding and leaving the train, isn't that a small price to pay for saving 100 billion pounds?

Where to begin ... ?

I'll just say that as I sit on my Euston-bound Pendolino I have never thought "what this train really needs is another row of seats in all that wasted space above our heads ... "

 

[anme]

Where to begin ... ?

I'll just say that as I sit on my Euston-bound Pendolino I have never thought "what this train really needs is another row of seats in all that wasted space above our heads ... "

Look at how tall a car is. Any deck taller than that is wasting space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No you wouldn't. You are making big assumptions about the design of double decker trains. You can easily fit two decks within the current loading gauge.

No, you can't. You would also have to lop back all the platforms to allow full width down to rail level for a start. The cost is massive, as is the disruption, as would be the loss of ability to run through onto other lines.

Most people don't stand for the whole of their journey - they sit. All the space above their heads is wasted.

Been on a commuter train lately? (If you only DoSto the VTs, that doesn't achieve a key aim of HS2, namely added commuter capacity, unless you're willing to lop 3tph down to 2 at Manchester and Brum?)

Anyway, ignoring that, where will the luggage go?

If they have to bend down a bit when boarding and leaving the train, isn't that a small price to pay for saving 100 billion pounds?

A gross oversimplification if I ever saw one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Look at how tall a car is. Any deck taller than that is wasting space.

Absolute rubbish. How are people going to get to their seats with their luggage? Squat-walk? It's a public transport service, not a bootcamp.

Look how tall a double decker bus is - that's a better comparison. And note that it is *taller* than the realistic available height above rail level on a UK train. And also note that the bogies will mean only about the middle half vehicle is double-decked. And then add floor level luggage stacks to replace the overheads.

You'd get 1.2x capacity at best.

 

[anme]

No, you can't. You would also have to lop back all the platforms to allow full width down to rail level for a start. The cost is massive, as is the disruption, as would be the loss of ability to run through onto other lines.

I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is it will still be massively cheaper than 100 billion pounds.

Been on a commuter train lately? (If you only DoSto the VTs, that doesn't achieve a key aim of HS2, namely added commuter capacity, unless you're willing to lop 3tph down to 2 at Manchester and Brum?)

With two decks, we will provide twice as many seats! No one will have to stand. If there are more people than seats, they can still lie down.
I don't know what DoSto is.

Anyway, ignoring that, where will the luggage go?

Have you been on a Virgin train recently? They already abandoned the concept of luggage space. People seem to manage.
If it's really a problem, the railway can charge for luggage like an airline.

 

[Ianno87]

With two decks, we will provide twice as many seats! No one will have to stand. If there are more people than seats, they can still lie down.
I don't know what DoSto is.

Totally wrong. Once you allow loss of length for staircases etc, it's only something like 30-40% more seats, not 100%.

Have you been on a Virgin train recently? They already abandoned the concept of luggage space. People seem to manage.
If it's really a problem, the railway can charge for luggage like an airline.

They have not "abandoned" it; there is plenty (arguably not quite enough, but that's pretty different from having virtually none whatsoever).

 

[mmh]

No you wouldn't. You are making big assumptions about the design of double decker trains. You can easily fit two decks within the current loading gauge. Most people don't stand for the whole of their journey - they sit. All the space above their heads is wasted.

If they have to bend down a bit when boarding and leaving the train, isn't that a small price to pay for saving 100 billion pounds?

There are countless threads on the forums where double decker trains in the standard loading gauge have been discussed. Inevitably the discussion concludes:
- It was attempted once, the Southern 4DD twin deck units, and they were awful.
- The gauge is far too restrictive below platform level
- It's just too small

 

[anme]

Absolute rubbish. How are people going to get to their seats with their luggage? Squat-walk? It's a public transport service, not a bootcamp.

Look how tall a double decker bus is - that's a better comparison. And note that it is *taller* than the realistic available height above rail level on a UK train. And also note that the bogies will mean only about the middle half vehicle is double-decked. And then add floor level luggage stacks to replace the overheads.

You'd get 1.2x capacity at best.

We need to let modern designers work on this, and not be consTRAINed by old railway thinking. For a start, is the design with doors at the end of the carriage optimal? It wastes a lot of space with vestibules and corridors. We could put a set of doors at the side of the train for each row of seats, and run the rows the full width of the train. Then we don't need vestibules and corridors at all! Space would be much more efficiently used, and as a bonus loading and unloading times would be much quicker (important for commuter routes). I know you're going to ask how people will access the buffet car - well, that would be more difficult, of course. But people can simply bring their own sandwiches and coffee. Most stations have shops these days.

You are right that the design of double decker buses is surprisingly inefficient.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We need to let modern designers work on this, and not be consTRAINed by old railway thinking. For a start, is the design with doors at the end of the carriage optimal? It wastes a lot of space with vestibules and corridors. We could put a set of doors at the side of the train for each row of seats, and run the rows the full width of the train. Then we don't need vestibules and corridors at all!

And lift the seat up to expose the toilet, with everyone turning their head away while it is used?

You are either trolling or living in a dreamworld.

Sorry about DoSto, by the way, it's a Germanicism - Doppelstockwagen - which means a double deck coach.

And it is a fact that due to the bogies (regardless of where you put the doors) you'll get about 1.2-1.3x capacity in a UK coach. You might squeeze 1.4 if you go fully articulated, but that's as far as is feasible. And downstairs will be 2+1 seating due to the narrowness of UK loading gauge below platform level.

It's a total non-starter.

 

[anme]

So we do not need the extra capacity on the WCML ?

Double deck trains will provide lots more capacity - see my other posts.
Otherwise we can just increase tickets prices until enough people stop travelling.

 

[mmh]

No you wouldn't. You are making big assumptions about the design of double decker trains. You can easily fit two decks within the current loading gauge.

If these trains already fit, why were you talking of raising bridges?

I still feel the answer is to run double decker trains on the west coast main line. Sure, we will need to do some building work, but it will be much cheaper and quicker to raise a few bridges than build a whole new line.

Make your mind up.

 

[Esker-pades]

I still feel the answer is to run double decker trains on the west coast main line. Sure, we will need to do some building work, but it will be much cheaper and quicker to raise a few bridges than build a whole new line.

Lots of bridges, lots of tunnels. Think of the Watford Tunnels and those on the direct line via Weedon. I think one would also have to make the tracks further apart (I seem to remember @Bald Rick saying something about that when this came up in another thread).

All good ideas and absolutely logically coherent - especially the parts about platform capacity not existing until we build it!

Combine this stuff with double decker trains and we won't need HS2 at all.

Combine the little stop gaps with something that won't work unless a huge amount of money is invested and we'll have spent about the same amount and got much less out of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Double deck trains will provide lots more capacity - see my other posts.

No they won't, they'll increase capacity by about 1.2-1.3. This is little more than you get from extending a 9 coach Pendolino to 11.

Otherwise we can just increase tickets prices until enough people stop travelling.

If HS2 is cancelled outright that is, I think, what we will see.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lots of bridges, lots of tunnels. Think of the Watford Tunnels and those on the direct line via Weedon. I think one would also have to make the tracks further apart (I seem to remember @Bald Rick saying something about that when this came up in another thread).

Not by much if at all - most UIC stock is 2.8something metres wide, which is about the same as 20m UK stock, and could definitely be achieved using articulated short vehicles such as a modified Stadler KISS (though I don't think the KISS platform is quite as modular as the FLIRT).

 

[anme]

Not by much if at all - most UIC stock is 2.8something metres wide, which is about the same as 20m UK stock, and could definitely be achieved using articulated short vehicles such as a modified Stadler KISS.

Thank you!

I hope everyone now sees that it wouldn't be very hard.

 

[anme]

No they won't, they'll increase capacity by about 1.2-1.3. This is little more than you get from extending a 9 coach Pendolino to 11.

See my plan for days for every row of seats and no corridors or vestibules. This will more than double capacity!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thank you!

I hope everyone now sees that it wouldn't be very hard.

You are missing the "height" and "cutting back platforms to the exclusion of other stock" bit, I suspect deliberately, as well as the issue of luggage and that double-deck doesn't give you anywhere near double capacity.

All I said is that 2.82m wide stock in the UK is achievable. To be honest, if you're going to do that you might as well have a budget 3+2 class (as I believe VT proposed at one point) and gain capacity that way.

A RIC standard coach is 2.825m x 26.4m over the buffers. You couldn't do both in UK gauge (a 26m vehicle like Class 80x is quite narrow and heavily tapered at the ends and the bogie centres are much closer together than European coaches), but you could do shorter articulated vehicles to keep the width. 20m non-articulated vehicles would be non-viable as the double-deck section would be less than half the coach length.

 

[Lucan]

Look at how tall a car is. Any deck taller than that is wasting space.

How ridiculous. A car does not have seats 10 yards from the door.

 

[6Gman]

Double deck trains will provide lots more capacity - see my other posts.

Constant repetition is not evidence.

 

[quantinghome]

We could put a set of doors at the side of the train for each row of seats, and run the rows the full width of the train. Then we don't need vestibules and corridors at all!

And how would passengers get to the upper deck? Staircase in every compartment perhaps? Or we could have double decker platforms?

I suggest you go to the patent office pdq to get these brilliant ideas registered before anyone else beats you to it.

 

[anme]

To be honest, if you're going to do that you might as well have a budget 3+2 class (as I believe VT proposed at one point) and gain capacity that way.

That's actually a great idea! Make 1st class 2+2, and standard 3+2, and we gain 25%+ capacity in one go. Sure, unless we go double deck it might be a bit uncomfortable, but the British people can take it.

 

[anme]

And how would passengers get to the upper deck? Staircase in every compartment perhaps? Or we could have double decker platforms?

Yes, obviously a ladder would be needed to upper compartments.
I'm not sure how double deck platforms would work.

 

[6Gman]

We need to let modern designers work on this, and not be consTRAINed by old railway thinking.

Nor, indeed, by the laws of physics.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, obviously a ladder would be needed to upper compartments.
I'm not sure how double decker platforms would work.

There would be a second platform stacked on top of the current one, with PEDs it's not that ridiculous.

UK1 gauge with Talgo vehicles might allow more width, but there is simply not the headroom for a double deck train.
You need at least 4m above rail for a reasonable double deck train.
Which we simply don't have.

 

[6Gman]

Yes, obviously a ladder would be needed to upper compartments.

And a ramp for wheelchair access ...

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's actually a great idea! Make 1st class 2+2, and standard 3+2, and we gain 25%+ capacity in one go. Sure, unless we go double deck it might be a bit uncomfortable, but the British people can take it.

With commuter services you've got the further option of going "Crossrail style" i.e. bays for longer trips and longitudinal for shorter ones and a higher acceptance of standing. That would work for the MKC and Tring stopping services, and to some extent I'm surprised LNR have not specified it, going instead for regular 3+2 seating for those services on the new Aventras. It would also be a better layout for the Thameslink Class 700s.