daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 1st, 2012, 01:57 AM   #321
Neb81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 201
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
I've had little luck affirming any of my musings of British doubledecker stock.
It's strange, given the capacity problems on the network - and the amount of aging BR era stock still kicking around - that double deck equipment hasn't been more seriously considered.
Neb81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 1st, 2012, 08:09 AM   #322
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neb81 View Post
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.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2012, 05:23 PM   #323
Neb81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 201
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
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.
Increased frequency would be great, I agree. The problem with increased frequency though ins't just signalling, but terminal capacity. Most of the London terminal stations are nearing the limits of their capacity in terms of platforms, and most of them cannot be easily expanded. The sheer number of commuter routes in inner South London means that even modest increases in frequency wind up with a LOT more trains trying to get into the finite space of the termini.

In an ideal world, you would extend the Underground/Tramlink/Crossrail to take over routes like the Hayes, Epsom, Caterham branches etc. to get those services out of the terminals and free up platform slots, but that is very unlikely to happen, at least within the foreseeable future.
Neb81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2012, 06:11 PM   #324
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

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.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2012, 02:17 AM   #325
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

It seems passenger cabins are narrower on trains that appear to tilt(?), as far ss I can tell from images and videos.
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2012, 02:41 AM   #326
Neb81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 201
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
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.
I didn't know about it coming up in the RU studies. Thanks for the info, Makita.
Neb81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2012, 04:23 AM   #327
k.k.jetcar
Registered User
 
k.k.jetcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sapporo
Posts: 1,811
Likes (Received): 452

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
It seems passenger cabins are narrower on trains that appear to tilt(?), as far ss I can tell from images and videos.
Yes, they must be to clear the structure gauge, such as tunnels and high platforms on curves.
k.k.jetcar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2012, 02:06 PM   #328
M-NL
Mixed-mode traveller
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,157
Likes (Received): 274

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Just consider the following:
1950 + 1950 + 150 = 4050. So you would have 65mm left for structure.
A TGV Duplex has a height of 4320mm. I would consider that the absolute minimum. German Dosto's are already over 30 centimeters taller. So you can pretty much rule them out for the UK loading gauge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
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.
You have to consider dwell time vs capacity. A double decker can carry roughly 45% more passengers, but not at the expense of a 45% longer dwelling time. You can also provide larger doors: The doors of Dutch DD-AR for instance are wide enough so three people can get through at the same time (about 3m wide).

Also consider: If you run 3 single deck trains instead of 2 double deckers you also need more rolling stock and more staff to run them. And all the improved signalling in the world won't help once you inevitably run into service disturbances.

In the end double deckers must be the better solution (I didn't say best!), otherwise it wouldn't have been used in a large number of countries around the world.
M-NL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2012, 02:35 PM   #329
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

I think, in the UK double decker is possible, but not really practical for a few reasons.
The high platforms are not an issue, take a look at Sydney for that.
The dwell times aren't either. There are very few commuter trains with more than four doors on each car (two at each end).
The loading gauge is the largest problem and there are multiple issues with it. The height is not too much of a problem if you have the bottom floor of the lower deck as close to the tracks as possible, and have the auxillary equipment housed on the roof above the doorways, where it is single-deck. (Note the Japanese E-231 (I believe?) narrow guage double deck EMU)
The biggest problem is the fact that the British loading gauge narrows signifigantly beneath the platform height, and the bottom deck would likely be a 1+1 or a 1+2 arrangement, so the gains wouldn't exactly be that great.
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2012, 09:21 PM   #330
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sopomon View Post
The dwell times aren't either. There are very few commuter trains with more than four doors on each car (two at each end).
Actually many commuter networks use trains with more than two doors per side. Look at the German S-Bahn for example. Four doors per side are quite common.
With double deckers you also have more passengers, who have a longer way from their seat to the door, as the doors will be at the end, and can't be more towards the middle.
For that reason the Zürich S-Bahn (which is now using double deckers almost exclusively) is investigating single deck stock for its busiest lines.

Quote:
The loading gauge is the largest problem and there are multiple issues with it. The height is not too much of a problem if you have the bottom floor of the lower deck as close to the tracks as possible, and have the auxillary equipment housed on the roof above the doorways, where it is single-deck.
You can't lower the bottom of the carriage further than 150mm above the rail. That means that you have less than 4m available for two decks, a roof, and space for passengers in between. That means that having 2m headroom on both decks is going to be impossible.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 08:33 AM   #331
earthJoker
Ölm
 
earthJoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Zürich
Posts: 2,806
Likes (Received): 1988

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
With double deckers you also have more passengers, who have a longer way from their seat to the door, as the doors will be at the end, and can't be more towards the middle.
Actually the newer trains (Siemens and Stadler) of the S-Bahn Zürich have their doors closer to the middle then the others. Which means that the upper deck is reaching the door from the far end of the coach instead from the middle. Additionally one could add a third door on the middle of the lower deck.
Quote:
For that reason the Zürich S-Bahn (which is now using double deckers almost exclusively) is investigating single deck stock for its busiest lines.
Actually not for the busiest lines. The busiest lines on the network are express (or skip) lines (S5, S12), and single deck coaches make the least sense there. The idea is actually to add new "inner" lines that don't reach the outskirts of the network, those would be single deck.

I actually would prefer three door coaches with a fast in/out lower deck and a upper deck for people who travel more than just 2 or 3 stations.
__________________
Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?

See you in the Swiss Forum on skyscrapercity.com
earthJoker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 09:56 AM   #332
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Actually many commuter networks use trains with more than two doors per side. Look at the German S-Bahn for example. Four doors per side are quite common.
With double deckers you also have more passengers, who have a longer way from their seat to the door, as the doors will be at the end, and can't be more towards the middle.
For that reason the Zürich S-Bahn (which is now using double deckers almost exclusively) is investigating single deck stock for its busiest lines.



You can't lower the bottom of the carriage further than 150mm above the rail. That means that you have less than 4m available for two decks, a roof, and space for passengers in between. That means that having 2m headroom on both decks is going to be impossible.


What I meant was that nearly all trains on the UK commuter network have only two doors per side. (Keeping it relevant).

And perhaps there are some routes with higher clearances?
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012, 06:50 PM   #333
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

The only UK trains I can think of that don't are the Pacers, with 1 or 2 doors per (very short) car. But they should be blown to pieces anyway. In a Top Gear special.

There is a preference for the 1/3rd 2/3rd door arrangements on commuter trains as opposed to having the doors at the end, which has some impact on the DD discussion.

Some routes have higher clearances yes, specifically all the intercity mainline routes, but these are not much bigger, and are primarily for freight (so there are many important passenger linkages that aren't gauge-improved), and almost none of the commuter networks that really need the capacity increase are included.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2012, 02:07 PM   #334
M-NL
Mixed-mode traveller
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,157
Likes (Received): 274

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
There is a preference for the 1/3rd 2/3rd door arrangements on commuter trains as opposed to having the doors at the end, which has some impact on the DD discussion.
What is the average travel time in these trains? Are there requirements for the number of seats and standees? As travel time shortens you can increase the number of doors and standees and reduce the number of seats. Look at Japan for examples. There they use all types ranging from 1 small door per car to 4 wide doors per car.
M-NL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2012, 03:16 PM   #335
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Average travel time for commuter heavy rail is usually between 20 and 60 minutes. The further out from London the more likely the train is to have 2+2 seating, closer and its more likely 3+2 seating (ie smaller seats) and more standing area. Capacity is determined by seating only, and any standing for longer than a certain amount of time (I think 20 minutes) is considered over capacity, and strategies are developed to alleviate the capacity problem.

When I used commute from north east Kent to London in the morning every train would have a couple of hundred people (often including me) standing all the way in to London which took about 30 minutes, which would be in addition to the 800-1000 sitting, and there were 15 trains per hour. Due to the frequency of service there would be no benefit using DD trains as the increased dwell time offsets the increased train capacity.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2012, 02:58 AM   #336
Neb81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 201
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
The only UK trains I can think of that don't are the Pacers, with 1 or 2 doors per (very short) car. But they should be blown to pieces anyway. In a Top Gear special.
with FIRE
Neb81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2012, 02:25 PM   #337
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

and then the audience explodes and then Jeremy Clarkson explodes and then there's an explosion. I hope they reduce the pacers to a proton plasma.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2012, 03:21 PM   #338
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
and then the audience explodes and then Jeremy Clarkson explodes and then there's an explosion. I hope they reduce the pacers to a proton plasma.
I wish there was a "like" button for that.

I'm just surprised that they haven't been replaced yet, surely something from Stadler or PESA would be just fine? (Admittedly it wouldn't be one of their off-the-shelf products)
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2012, 08:41 PM   #339
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sopomon

I wish there was a "like" button for that.

I'm just surprised that they haven't been replaced yet, surely something from Stadler or PESA would be just fine? (Admittedly it wouldn't be one of their off-the-shelf products)
Stadler wouldn't have much trouble building UK compatible Flirt.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2012, 05:03 PM   #340
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sopomon View Post
I wish there was a "like" button for that.

I'm just surprised that they haven't been replaced yet, surely something from Stadler or PESA would be just fine? (Admittedly it wouldn't be one of their off-the-shelf products)
There are only three train manufacturers in the world - Siemens, Hitachi, and some blokes in Derby. Or at least this is what the DfT believes.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium