SkyscraperCity Forum banner

MISC | Double-decker trains

318K views 462 replies 149 participants last post by  Midnight Sun 
#1 ·
Could you please post the pictures of double-deck units of the railways of your country and give some information about them. Routes, Top speed, regular speed, range, number of the stations they stop on a route.
 
#291 ·
There are doors between the passenger cabin and the vestibules, that's not the reason for the doors in the middle of the car.

The doors are there because some parts of the upper floor have become silence areas, they keep those areas separated from the normal seating areas.
 
#305 ·
Those old Dutch trains were horrible. The refurbished ones have some positive notes, and some bad ones.

Positive, in no particular order:
- large LCD screens pointing origin and destination
- biological/vacuum toilets
- large staircases
- better ergonomics of seats
- good wheaterization of the cars, reduced noise

Negative:
- lack of an LCD-illuminated or other soft-touch button to open doors, instead of that 1980s mechanism
- lack of armrests between seats on 2nd class
- too few open plan row-aligned seats
- lack of a very distinctive layout/theme of the Silent areas that would clearly communicate talking or making noises is frowned upon in the Silent area
- proper trash disposal bins absent.
- no provision for seat reservation
- mid-car glass doors should be sliding, and open with a touch-button, not blunt sheer manual force to swing them.
 
#307 ·
- too few open plan row-aligned seats
In double deck trains a "coach" arrangement has the disadvantage of reducing available luggage space. Between the backs of seats is about the only place that you can use to get rid of larger pieces of luggage.
Also "vis-a-vis" seating is considered more attractive on services with the average loadings typical for Dutch trains.

- proper trash disposal bins absent.
Actually having a few bins of usable size on the platforms works better than small ones at the seats.

- no provision for seat reservation
There is no need for those. So why spend money on that.
- mid-car glass doors should be sliding, and open with a touch-button, not blunt sheer manual force to swing them.
That would have been impossible to implement in this case. Remember this is a refurbished train, not a new one.
 
#306 ·
^^ You forgot the free WiFi in the positive list.


With the silence area it might have been better if it did look different. But even then it would have been more a matter of enforcing it actively because there are enough people that simply don't pay attention to these things. Especially when they are with kids who most of the time like to sit upstairs, although that's a problem in the weekends and not so much during commuting times.

On the other hand, a different look would mean that many people will think it's the 1st class and walk on to the regular area. I've seen this happen to many times in new trains, people simply don't look at the signs. It's also one of the reasons why seat reservation doesn't work in regular Dutch trains. People are simply too used to just buy a ticket at station and go. They won't take notice of any reserved seats, they will just sit down at any available space. This is why tests with reservation in regular IC have never worked.

Oh, and you clearly never seen Dutch people struggling with automatic doors that don't have a clear handle that you have to use to open a door.... I'm always embarrassed when happens.

ps.
That 1980s mechanism is a late 1960s mechanism, we were ahead of our times. ;)
 
#317 · (Edited)
I like the blue livery.

Anything that's different from the generic DB-like red and white that's on everything now.
 
#319 ·
Thinking of earlier talk of using double-deck units in the UK. We know from history that double-deck operation is technically feasible from BRs experiments with the 4-DD units. The problems were that it was cramped on the upper deck, longer dwell times and poor ventilation. However, if we think about it, these problems could be overcome without the recourse to any radical technologies, and within existing UK rail clearances (i.e. no need to rebuild tunnels or anything drastic).

Ventilation
This is probably the simplest. The 4-DD dates from an era when air conditioning was not the norm on UK trains. Simply by incorporating modern norms for HVAC would resolve this. Furthermore, in the days of the 4-DD, smoking was permitted on trains. The smoking ban further simplifies matters.

Interior space and dwell times
The 4DD suffered from several design problems here.
1. The carriage floor stood 1.28m (4ft2") above the rails, on a conventional bogie arrangement. This left just 2.5m (8ft2") for both "decks" (actually stacked compartments).
2. Most doors were single and manually operated
3. Access through the train was limited, making distribution and movement of passengers difficult.

problem one could be solved by using Talgo style bogies. This would mean the floor could be lowered considerably, giving far more height on the passenger decks. This could be further improved by adopting modern "thin wall" construction techniques, maximizing the width available in the passenger decks.

Since the Talgo bogie has no joining axle, passenger access between carriages could be incorporated on both decks, easing movement and distribution of passengers and also helping create a sense of a more open environment than the 4-DD. This has already been demonstrated to be possible on the Talgo 22 prototype.

Using modern plug double doors would drastically reduce dwell times, which combined with the non-compartmental structure would allow for free flow of passengers.

The only issue would be with the high platforms used in Britain, which would mean introducing steps around the doors, and ramp for disabled access - either that or passengers having to step up/down to/from the platform, with a portable ramp on hand for wheelchair users.

Overall, I am hazarding a guess (not having exact figures or being an engineer myself) that something like the Talgo 22 could be adapted to UK clearances, with relatively modest sacrifices in interior space. The existing 22 design species a height range of 4600mm, compared to 4115 for the UK, with width of 2850 compared to 2642 for UK.

Clearly, it would be a unique design specifically for the UK market, though there are several routes which would benefit from the increased capacity, and a combined order would certainly make it worthwhile. Obvious routes are the Brighton and Southend mainlines, most of the Suburban lines in London (paticularly the Southern "Metro" routes and the hopelessly overcrowded NLL and GOBLIN), as well as the shuttle services for places like Woking, Guildford, Reading etc.

Thoughts?

Talgo 22 - double-deck EMU concept

4-DD Bulleid Double-Decker
 
#322 ·
Overall, I am hazarding a guess (not having exact figures or being an engineer myself) that something like the Talgo 22 could be adapted to UK clearances, with relatively modest sacrifices in interior space. The existing 22 design species a height range of 4600mm, compared to 4115 for the UK, with width of 2850 compared to 2642 for UK.
I don't think it would work. The Talgo 22 concept asumes a minimum vehicle height of 4600mm, with interior height on both level about 2m.
Now consider fitting this to the UK gauge. I don't think that taking of half a meter of the vehicle will only result in "modest sacrifices" to interior space. It would be impossible to have two passenger levels with interior height of 1m95, which is about the minimum you want.

Just consider the following:
1950 + 1950 + 150 = 4050. So you would have 65mm left for structure. Just can't be done.

Double deck cars also have the disadvantage of longer dwell times, which is exactly what you don't want on the London suburban network. I think that a better solution is to improve signalling so that you can run more trains.
 
#324 ·
K is right, the loading guage is too restrictive - at least on the London SE commuter network. It is not beyond the realms of possibility, but the investment in super materials and systems required to make them small enough and comply with modern standards would most likely be larger than rebuilding every bridge.

The business risk in attempting such a project is so huge that it will not be pursued, but I have to point out it is an option that is scoped out at every RUS and then immediately rejected - so it is in fact taken seriously, its just not practicable.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top