Imaginary Locomotives

[Pacific231G]

I think the problem is not just the reduced height in our loading gauge, but the restricted width at the bottom because of our high platforms.

 

This is of course not the first time this topic has come up on RMWeb...

It goes down from 9ft to 8ft 8ins.

I think this comparison is.a bit out of date and the current widely adopted UIC loading gauge is probably a bit taller than Berne but it illustrates the challenge.  I'm pretty sure the Etat's double deckers were within Berne. They were slightly out of gauge for lines with OHE but that was fixed by fitting them with smaller wheels.

 

Anyway, back to imaginary locomotives; I think a steam railcar sort of counts as a locomotive

 

 

This drawing from 1881 is of an idea mooted two years earlier. The concept behind this improbable looking vehicle was for a steam rail motor that could, on its own, cater for the non-goods needs of a quiet branch line. It would have essentially added half a steam tram loco to a four wheel double deck carriage.

 

Up to twenty four third class passengers would ride on the upper deck, there would be one second class compartment for ten people, a half compartment (coupé) for four first class passengers, a postal coupé that could take another five second class passengers when the posties were't using it and a baggage compartment that, apart from carrying smalls and the guard, would meet the then legal requirement that passengers couldn't be right next to the locomotive, It appears to be single ended so presumably would have been turned at each end of its run. It was supposed to be able to haul a single trailer.

 

Needless to say, such a bizarre concoction didn't stay on the drawing board and two of them were actually built by Fives Lille. They weren't a success, maintenance was a problem as was lack of power and the passengers hated them (but who cared what they thought, lucky to have a railway at all) Following an inglorious career they were scrapped after just ten years  and the Etat railway was clearly embarassed by them as there doesn't seem to be a single photograph of one of these in existence.

 

With no photographic evidence I thought that these things were about as real as unicorns until I found a contemporary account of them in service mostly around Chartres and La Rochelle. 

[runs as required]

With no photographic evidence I thought that these things were about as real as unicorns until I found a contemporary account of them in service mostly around Chartres and La Rochelle. 

 

Haven't we discussed the early Bristol & Exeter broad gauge railcar of 1848 here before?

dh

Edited September 21, 2017 by runs as required

[Bloodnok]

Would adopting the Talgo pggy-back concept not work effectively in saving bogie space for a high capacity double decker ?

dh

(as someone who used to ride the Dartford 4DD units)

Hmmm....

 

 

Interesting there's no continuous axle from wheel to wheel on a talgo, if that image is to be taken as representative.

 

So the theory there is you could run continuous low floor right through the train, and not need to revert to a mid-level single deck to get over a bogie or even an axle.

 

But doors opening onto a platform are then a major problem, so I could see it working in places which use low level boarding, but not somewhere like here with a higher level platform.

[runs as required]

Thanks for posting that pic - I can understand why your reaction is 'Hmmm'

 

I have never thought about it before, but recalling  travelling on Continental double decker commuter trains, access is seldom easy from the doors to the upper deck.

 

dh

[Compound2632]

I have never thought about it before, but recalling  travelling on Continental double decker commuter trains, access is seldom easy from the doors to the upper deck.

 

Hum... not sure about that. About a quarter of a century ago, I travelled quite a few times between Legnica and Wroclaw. The local trains were locomotive-hauled four-coach articulated units - it seems Rivarossi do a model though when I travelled on them they were a rather dowdy olive green. The central stairs to the upper deck were quite spacious whereas the stairs to the lower deck were less inviting (to one side or both sides of the upper stairs, I can't recall). Upstairs was the place to travel - a wider view of the countryside - with plenty of time to enjoy it.  

 

After that, I was in Paris but only made very occasional forays on the RER ligne C - those double deckers certainly did seem more cramped, perhaps because they were usually very full of Parisians.

[Pacific231G]

Hmmm....

 

 

Interesting there's no continuous axle from wheel to wheel on a talgo, if that image is to be taken as representative.

 

So the theory there is you could run continuous low floor right through the train, and not need to revert to a mid-level single deck to get over a bogie or even an axle.

 

But doors opening onto a platform are then a major problem, so I could see it working in places which use low level boarding, but not somewhere like here with a higher level platform.

I suppose you could do it by having side steps up and down to door lobbies at conventional height from each level and still have two continuous decks but even within a width of 10ft you'd end up with some rather narrow corridors.  

 

 

The type of double decker originally introduced by the C.F.de l'Etat in 1933 has become the norm in most countries that used them with single decks at conventional height at each end providing the entrances and some seating

 

I never travelled on one of these but even as a visitor I do find the VB2N (double deck suburban) coaches used around Paris and elsewhere a bit claustrophobic on both decks even when they're not busy (though far better than standing when they are ) The Duplex TGVs rely on a somewhat more generous loading gauge.

 

In the Western USA, Amtrak operate a type first introduced by the Santa Fe for its El Capitan service with a continuous upper deck including the corridor connections and the external entrances in the middle of each car at the lower level.

It looks from this that the reduced space below the upper deck above the bogies was used for services like air con.but the larger loading gauge in the west would enable a fairly spacious upper deck and still have seating, bathrooms, kitchens and baggage rooms on the lower deck.   

 

With almost no or very low platforms on Western US RRs this design makes sense, gives the passengers a much better view and they don't have to constantly go up  and down stairs (or disability access lifts)  as they move through the train something that is far less important on commuter trains. There are interrmediate carriages for connecting these cars to regular single deck equipment.

 

This is wandering a bit from imaginary locomotives.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Pacific231G

[rockershovel]

Love the cowpoke and his best girl, bottom centre!

[Pacific231G]

We also have a third issue in the well length between bogies. Taking a Mk3 coach as a pattern, the available space between the bogies is only about half the length of the coach, which means once you add two sets of stairs, you're not actually getting much extra capacity per train length versus plain single deck coaches.

 

The fix for that is instead of using the bogie pattern of the Mk3, start with a shared bogie platform. I've heard suggestions of something like a CARTIC-4 as a base outline (and exploting the small wheels for a lower main floor throughout), but that implies a restriction to only lower speed operations, which feel more thematic to run as single deck with loads of standing space.

 

So I picked the APT bogie centers when I had a go, looking at longer distance work. With the twin pivots and balancing overhang (there's a lot that's ridiculously clever about the APT design...) that gives a much, much longer well space than anything else.

 

However, I still had issues getting it into a sensible loading gauge. The below is W6, which gives 3.965m height from railhead to the top of the coach, and a usefully wide well between the bogies which can still fit 2+2 seating comfortably. The top deck feels very ... tube-train like, and the lower deck also has to have very restricted height clearance, too.

 

This is how far I got along these lines (image dates from 2005):

 

surprise.jpg

 

I experimented for a while with staggered aisles and a non-flat intermediate floor (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowbridge_double-deck_bus for the kind of thing I mean), but eventually decided that a flat floor was probably better for both structural rigidity and the avoidance of trip and head-bump injuries. Remember that unlike the bus, the upper floor walkway absolutely has to be in the middle -- it cannot be at the edge. It is the lower floor walkway that must be put at the edge.

 

I had thought the best treatment of the upper area would probably be to put a bench seat continuously down one wall over where the extra head-space for the walkaway was below. This would disguise the non-flat floor almost entirely, albeit at the cost of some seated capacity upstairs.

 

On the lower floor, a slight duck might be necessary to access the seating from an edge corridor, as the roof would be lower over the seats.

 

After a brief bit of "I wonder how that would look with compartment doors..." nostalgia, I decided in the end that the loading gauge would have to go up by approximately ~20cm to allow for a flat floor.

 

After briefly experimenting with a roof profile similar to an american Bombardier Bi-Level coach, I decided instead to keep the roof-line smooth at the higher level, and this then gave me something that starts to look like this (Image dates from 2011):

 

dosto-W6+.png

 

Starting to look a bit more continental in pattern IMHO.

 

Also note the switch to longer windows for those who were using them as a length reference -- and they'd not been cut in yet because I was still tweaking the layout and position of doors and windows when I essentially gave up on this project.

 

Despite the fact the windows and doors aren't cut yet, it does actually have an interior with seats in it (donated from an original Mk3 temporarily to check for size references). Using these at a similar pitch and in a mostly-airline configuration gave a seated capacity of around ~124 in each vehicle. A respectable and worthwhile increase over ~80 from an all-airline Mk3.

 

Add in toilets and HVAC and so on to each vehicle and you'd have to be very creative not to lose some seats. You've also got to watch axle loading here - remember the intermediate vehicle is effectively on just two axles. There's enough space to make the shared bogie a three axle one, although that departs slightly from how the APT would have run, but it might have been a necessary change to cope with axle loading.

 

Then you get the requirement to cater for disabled access, including the provision of a disabled toilet, which would probably force one entire vehicle somewhere to be single-deck throughout. I'd planned one end vehicle would cope with this, but to be honest would probably end up being both.

 

And if you wanted it to be an EMU rather than loco hauled ... good luck finding anywhere to put power equipment along the train.

 

Ditto a catering car -- that's a challenge that would probably require going to single deck, too.

 

If you've then got three single deck vehicles in an EMU with perhaps five cars total, that leaves only two double deck trailers. Not a lot of extra seats per service.

 

I can certainly understand why this hasn't been done within the UK loading gauge before...

This is absolutely fascinating Bloodnok.

I'd seen this artists impression but was this done by you? (and if so I hope I've not breached your IP) 

 

Was your design exercise comissioned by or for BR or was it a private initiative?

Just looking at it tentatively I concluded that it was just about possible within UK gauge but unlikely to be worth doing.

The only other approach I did wonder about was to use Bulleid's idea of interleaved compartments but with access from a common corridor (centre for saloon seating or side for compartments) 

I remember a restaurant, I think near Waterloo, that had interlocking upper and lower booths rather like this but I don't think the diners thought much of it.

 

It's worth noting that when the closed saloon double deckers were first introduced by the CF de l'Est, the Parisian commuters immediately nicknamed them "Bidels", likening them to the double deck travelling animal cages of the then famous menagerie of François Bidel. The nickname remained for the carriages long after the menagerie was forgotten but suggests they were less than well loved.

 

 

Would adopting the Talgo pggy-back concept not work effectively in saving bogie space for a high capacity double decker ?

dh

(as someone who used to ride the Dartford 4DD units)

 

 

Obvious question having only seen pictures of them. What were they actually like to travel in and did you prefer upper or lower, or possibly waitng for the next train.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Coryton]

I suppose you could do it by having side steps up and down to door lobbies at conventional height from each level and still have two continuous decks but even within a width of 10ft you'd end up with some rather narrow corridors.  

 

 

The type of double decker originally introduced by the C.F.de l'Etat in 1933 has become the norm in most countries that used them with single decks at conventional height at each end providing the entrances and some seating

14 Etat VB2N Richelieu 2004 (c DT).jpg

 

I never travelled on one of these but even as a visitor I do find the VB2N (double deck suburban) coaches used around Paris and elsewhere a bit claustrophobic on both decks even when they're not busy (though far better than standing when they are ) The Duplex TGVs rely on a somewhat more generous loading gauge.

 

In the Western USA, Amtrak operate a type first introduced by the Santa Fe for its El Capitan service with a continuous upper deck including the corridor connections and the external entrances in the middle of each car at the lower level.

18 Sante_Fe_RR_El_Capitan.jpg

It looks from this that the reduced space below the upper deck above the bogies was used for services like air con.but the larger loading gauge in the west would enable a fairly spacious upper deck and still have seating, bathrooms, kitchens and baggage rooms on the lower deck.   

 

With almost no or very low platforms on Western US RRs this design makes sense, gives the passengers a much better view and they don't have to constantly go up  and down stairs (or disability access lifts)  as they move through the train something that is far less important on commuter trains. There are interrmediate carriages for connecting these cars to regular single deck equipment.

 

This is wandering a bit from imaginary locomotives.

 

If I may continue the wander a little, I think the reason that Amtrak doesn't use these coaches on most of their east-of-Chicago services isn't because the loading gauge is generally larger out to the west, but because the tunnels into Penn Station in New York have a restricted loading gauge. (Commuter services into New York now have double decker coaches more like European ones)

 

The Chicago to Washington Amtrak service runs with double deck coaches - or at any rate used to.

 

A few of the Santa Fe coaches are still in use on the Coast Starlight as Parlour Cars (yes - not Parlor) and very lovely they are too.

 

The Alaska Railroad seems to have a very generous loading gauge - they have double decker coaches which don't seem to have the lower deck dropped at all: http://www.trainweb.org/ultradomes/arr/652.html

[Compound2632]

A few of the Santa Fe coaches are still in use on the Coast Starlight as Parlour Cars (yes - not Parlor) and very lovely they are too.

 

Odd coincidence - just the other day I happened to watch an episode of The Big Bang Theory in which Sheldon Cooper delivered a potted history of these cars.

[Northmoor]

Obvious question having only seen pictures of them. What were they actually like to travel in and did you prefer upper or lower, or possibly waitng for the next train.

I've never traveled in one (a DD) but everything I've read - apart from what is described above about the restrictions the loading gauge impose on getting in more seats than a standard vehicle - suggests the upper deck was very claustrophobic, especially in hot weather as obviously the upper windows couldn't open.  Also - and this is critical on commuter stock - is that loading and unloading is much slower as people have to practically climb over one another.  Acceleration, braking and dwell times are the be-all-and-end-all of the commuter railway.

 

Worth remembering the challenge it has been for modern EMU builders to get the same theoretical unloading time as VEP stock.  Only ten seats per door meant you could empty a 12-car slam door set at Waterloo in about 15 seconds (although admittedly some lunatics would start the process before the train stopped).  That's about 1200 people.

[Coryton]

I've never traveled in one (a DD) but everything I've read - apart from what is described above about the restrictions the loading gauge impose on getting in more seats than a standard vehicle - suggests the upper deck was very claustrophobic, especially in hot weather as obviously the upper windows couldn't open.  Also - and this is critical on commuter stock - is that loading and unloading is much slower as people have to practically climb over one another.  Acceleration, braking and dwell times are the be-all-and-end-all of the commuter railway.

 

Worth remembering the challenge it has been for modern EMU builders to get the same theoretical unloading time as VEP stock.  Only ten seats per door meant you could empty a 12-car slam door set at Waterloo in about 15 seconds (although admittedly some lunatics would start the process before the train stopped).  That's about 1200 people.

 

I've sometimes wondered if you could have upper level doors on a double decker train with an upper platform to match.

 

For a lot of commuter services you'd only need it at the terminus because at the other stations there are far fewer people getting on and off at a given station.

[runs as required]

Obvious question having only seen pictures of them. What were they actually like to travel in and did you prefer upper or lower, or possibly waitng for the next train.

We would particularly target the one double-decker journey early in the evening rush at about 5.20pm from London Bridge we rode quite frequently to a colleague's house in Blackheath.

It was as easy to board as the equivalent 4SUB, the fun started once aboard. Naturally our preference (being in our mid 20s) was to ride in the upper compartment, but it was fairly easy to see whether a seat was available. I don't remember it ever being as packed as the trains south to Bromley/Sevenoaks.

The nearest I can liken it to was the decor of the 1940s Waterloo and City stock. The complex 3D moulded partitions were some kind of melamine plastic faced (plywood ?) in a milky coffee and brown colour range with brown tubing grabs and handrails - all very minimally detailed.

I can't recall the ride and noise level as different to a 4SUB, but I do recall the upper windows being pretty grimy because they seemed to be above the carriage washer brushes.

 

As to claustrophobia - I'd say not as oppressive as the upper deck of a crowded train to or from Fiumicino airport and Trastevere, Rome on a cold morning.

dh

[RJD]

I think the Bulleid double decker coaches created a problem with slow unloading of passengers -a big deal on the SR.

[Bloodnok]

This is absolutely fascinating Bloodnok.

tentative BR design for 2 deck suburban coach APT bogies.jpg

I'd seen this artists impression but was this done by you? (and if so I hope I've not breached your IP)

Nope, not mine at all. Fascinating though :-)

 

Was your design exercise comissioned by or for BR or was it a private initiative?

No, I just got interested and decided to see what I could come up with.

 

Just looking at it tentatively I concluded that it was just about possible within UK gauge but unlikely to be worth doing.

After posting my last post, I started thinking about what would happen if we absolutely maxxed out the UK's loading gauge, but in a practical way. Raising the roof in the centre, following a typical rounded profile (the way I did it last time) isn't realistic -- we've still got a 3.965m hard limit because electrification. but we've spent lots of money eliminating gauge corner problems for high-cube containers.

 

The biggest gauges in use here are UK1 and W12. Neither are anything like universal, but both are sufficiently widely accepted on major mainlines that using them is a practical consideration, whereas creating a new one is a complete flight of fancy.

 

UK1 is wider than W12 (which is very targeted at container traffic), but W12 has higher corners than UK1. So I started to piece together a composite UK1+W12 gauge, trying to get as close to a flat roof as I can, for maximum upper deck headroom.

 

Then in my websearching, I came across this.

 

... I think that's what they've done, as the profile looks very similar to what I came up with, right down to the kink in the bodyside (because platform) and everything.

 

Also note ... non-flat floor.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Bloodnok

[whart57]

Having travelled on both NS double deckers in Holland during the rush hour and experienced Southern Railway during the morning and evening peaks I would say there is little difference in loading and unloading speeds.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Interesting concept. The only thing that immediately leaps out is that it's not disabled compatible as there's stairs to both the lower and upper levels. I suspect that the only way to get around that and the need to fit some equipment underfloor for traction etc would be to have single deck end vehicles if this were to be turned into an emu concept. Other countries (swiss spring to mind) have successfully used a rail car + multiple trailers format for many years, so single deck railcar + double deck articulated trailers (3 axel articulated bogies? driving cabs with gangways at the ends) could be an option..... think I might try drawing that up without going too far OT.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Satan's Goldfish

[MikeOxon]

Hmmm....

 

 

Interesting there's no continuous axle from wheel to wheel on a talgo, if that image is to be taken as representative.

 

So the theory there is you could run continuous low floor right through the train, and not need to revert to a mid-level single deck to get over a bogie or even an axle.

 

But doors opening onto a platform are then a major problem, so I could see it working in places which use low level boarding, but not somewhere like here with a higher level platform.

 

That photo looks as though the system is uni-directional - the links are not symmetrical - so how were the trains turned round?

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

 

Interesting graphic showing a variant proposed for the CalTrain improvement project.

 

I've ridden the CalTrains, they are an 'interesting' experience in interior design and ergonomics.

 

 

I've also ridden the DB amd KTT double deckers, which have the single level lobby area and then steps to the upper and lower decks.  All of them suffer by trying to cram two decks into the Berne Gauge... wouldn't want to do it in the UK with our even more restricted loading gauge.

[Suzie]

There will be room above the bogies for level access accommodation as on continental double deck stock working from high platforms with a seating compartment in one car and the toilet in the adjacent car. The space above used by the aircon plant/electrical equipment/pantograph. Wide doors adjacent to the stairs allow detraining from both decks simultaneously so egress is actually very fast - equivalent to having four doors in a single decker!

 

I wish I could find a side-on view of some of the latest double deck stock from Stadler or Bombadier to have a go at a UK variant- in practice there will only be about 3" lower headroom in upper and lower saloons than some continental offerings, so if we can be made to put up with inadequate 2+3 seating in narrow bodies - lower headroom is a minor consideration. If the traffic justifies it then there must be a very good case for gauge enhancement to W12/UK1 hybrid gauge.

[BG John]

Surely the most efficient way to increase capacity is to study the way the contents of a sardine tin are packed. Sedation of passengers may be required, but that would avoid complaints of claustrophobia and noxious odours. No need for double deckers then, just some form of mechanised packing system, that scans tickets and knows which station to unload and wake up the "customers".

[Compound2632]

Surely the most efficient way to increase capacity is to study the way the contents of a sardine tin are packed. Sedation of passengers may be required, but that would avoid complaints of claustrophobia and noxious odours. No need for double deckers then, just some form of mechanised packing system, that scans tickets and knows which station to unload and wake up the "customers".

 

Have you travelled from Waterloo in the evening rush-hour?

[BG John]

Have you travelled from Waterloo in the evening rush-hour?

Only once, many years ago on a good olde slam door EMU. By an amazing coincidence, the only free seat I found just happened to be next to someone who I used to work with, and who lived on the same estate as me. Which was great, as the train in front broke down, and she knew how to get home from where we were abandoned. I wouldn't have had a clue how to!

[The Johnster]

Surely the most efficient way to increase capacity is to study the way the contents of a sardine tin are packed. Sedation of passengers may be required, but that would avoid complaints of claustrophobia and noxious odours. No need for double deckers then, just some form of mechanised packing system, that scans tickets and knows which station to unload and wake up the "customers".

 

Presumably the carriage is opened with one of those 'keys'...

[Suzie]

I think with all those spare pacers coming to end of lease there could be a case to rebuild them with some parts left over from withdrawn buses...

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Suzie