FPH 603 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 That will be fine until you meet the first curved platform. Cheers David Would this be any better? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Still wouldn't work. It's still vertical below platform height and would scrape any curved platform. Cheers David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) Still wouldn't work. It's still vertical below platform height and would scrape any curved platform. Cheers David The design is 8' 8'' in width, not 9' 0''. If you look at JDW's post near the top of the page it shows the British loading gauge for below platform width is 8' 8''. Edited February 13, 2018 by DoubleDeckInterurban Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 A quick back of the envelope calculation suggests that anything tighter than about 700m radius and the inswing would still foul a platform. I haven't calculated the outswing of the corners. Cheers David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 A quick back of the envelope calculation suggests that anything tighter than about 700m radius and the inswing would still foul a platform. I haven't calculated the outswing of the corners. Cheers David This is really confusing me, so is it too wide or too long? This stuff is kind of new to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) This is really confusing me, so is it too wide or too long? This stuff is kind of new to me. Possibly both! But it may only be too wide below platform level. The suggestion above to narrow it below platform height and have longitudinal seats makes sense. I know a lot of people get annoyed at being told to "mind the gap" but there is a good reason the gap exists. Another way to minimise the inswing and maximise the amount of space on the lower deck is to make the coaches shorter and articulated. Say 5 coaches across 6 bogies in the same space as 4 independent ones. EDIT: Or something like the French Regio2N. Cheers David Edited February 13, 2018 by DavidB-AU 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) I have shortened the the DTS (Now a half motor articulated vehicle or DHMS) to and will gradually redesign the other carriages if this design will work. The lower half of the vehicle below the platform has been tapered similar to that of a Mk3 coach, and because the lower deck windows are at platform level this will only mean the seats are slightly closer together. I may replace these with longitudinal seats later. EDIT: I will probably remove the end single deck saloon at the articulated section of the DHMS. However this will mean I will have to relocate or completely remove the roof mounted equipment. Edited February 13, 2018 by DoubleDeckInterurban Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 The wheelbase and length of skirt between the bogies is the same so you'll still have the same problem. Think about something like this. With a fixed articulated set and very wide gangways (like the class 378) you don't need doors at both ends of each coach. Each intermediate coach has room at the non-door end for wheelchairs and a few seats for those who can't negotiate stairs. I'm assuming a high capacity commuter train without toilets. CheersDavid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) The wheelbase and length of skirt between the bogies is the same so you'll still have the same problem. Think about something like this. DD.png With a fixed articulated set and very wide gangways (like the class 378) you don't need doors at both ends of each coach. Each intermediate coach has room at the non-door end for wheelchairs and a few seats for those who can't negotiate stairs. I'm assuming a high capacity commuter train without toilets. Cheers David Looks like you've done the work for me! I think that looks pretty good. I really need to start stepping outside the box, as I was initially go for a much more conventional approach and simply shorten the coaches and have a 4-car articulated set, but that does look a lot better. I'll look into this further and make a more 'finalised' variant. I will redesign the bogies, and make any other minor tweaks where needed. I feel like the front will need work as well, part of me is saying that I should revert the roof back to it's original shape, as I find when looking front on it looks like its lost some of it's character. EDIT: I think I'll have to work on the livery too, there's something missing... Edited February 13, 2018 by DoubleDeckInterurban 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimC Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Another thing to do is consider loading gauges in detail. The lines being upgraded for container traffic may have more potential. If we imagine that upgrade program making more progress with more investment... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Being slightly longer with more overhand of the front bogie, the end might need to be tapered a bit. Something a bit like a slightly taller class 345 would work. Cheers David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Being slightly longer with more overhand of the front bogie, the end might need to be tapered a bit. Something a bit like a slightly taller class 345 would work.CheersDavid I had a look at this, but I find the overhang of the 345's front is more than my double deck design. Really I see the overhang being just a little more than your standard 321 or 'Networker' EMU's. I see where you are going but personally I don't think that would be necessary. The original design had the coaches at approximately 62', whereas to me they look more like the length of 57' 1st generation DMU's, maybe even shorter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted February 13, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 13, 2018 I think the idea of the double decker is getting there but there's a lot of single deck only space above the bogies. I wonder if single axle trucks between some of the coaches would work? The full bogies at the ends could be motored with shorter gaps above single axles in the middle. Not sure about axle loads,though it works for Talgo trains.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted February 13, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) Another thing to do is consider loading gauges in detail. The lines being upgraded for container traffic may have more potential. If we imagine that upgrade program making more progress with more investment... Look how many times do we have to explain this, The problem with achieving double deck trains IS NOT THEIR HEIGHT! It is the restricted with below solebar level of the UK loading gauge that is an issue. Please study the diagram in post 2754! Edited February 13, 2018 by phil-b259 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted February 13, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13, 2018 With platform lengths not likely to be extended beyond 12x 20m cars, a solution that gets 18x cars worth of passengers in reasonably comfortably will be quite popular today. With the modern option of wider gangways between cars there is often no need at all for any doors on some cars (look at some German single deck EMUs for an example). I don't see the UK loading gauge as making a double deck impossible - it just requires some imagination. My first bit of imagination is to propose articulated pairs or triples of cars with double deck gangways so the cars can be shorter in length without losing all the seating capacity. My second bit is instead of having the stairs at the ends of the cars they are in the middle, allowing the middle to be a bit narrower than the rest (bone shaped) so allowing longer cars. Might be tricky to find places for all the gubbins that normaly go on top of a low roof or under the floor. If doors are not an issue why have TfL specified 3 sets per vehicle to cope on Crossrail. We already know there are widespread concerns that Thameslink will not be able to meet its target of 24 tph in the core due to station dwell times. Having anything less than 2 sets of wide doors evenly spaced along the car simply won't work on the peak time SE services due to passenger volumes and would wreck the timetable. Not particularly helpful if your new wonderful double deck trains end up reducing the number of trains that can run..... Of course having a double deck is usually incompatible with doors at 1/3rd and 2/3rd positions, particularly with high level platforms where end doorways above the bogies are more logical Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted February 13, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13, 2018 1. The platform clearance width is 8' 8'', so wouldn't be as simple as making the entire thing narrower? The problem with this is that you now needed to fit extended footsteps to cover the gaps left due to the passenger space not 'stepping out' as per current stock. It also reduces the already tight space inside the train for passengers - have a look at the interior of a 'Hastings' DEMU and compare to an ordinary Mk1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 The problem with this is that you now needed to fit extended footsteps to cover the gaps left due to the passenger space not 'stepping out' as per current stock. It also reduces the already tight space inside the train for passengers - have a look at the interior of a 'Hastings' DEMU and compare to an ordinary Mk1 Essentially like the APT! I see your point with the Hastings DEMU and the Mk1, they do look very different in terms of width. So are you saying that I should revert to the width to 9' 0''? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 I think the idea of the double decker is getting there but there's a lot of single deck only space above the bogies. I wonder if single axle trucks between some of the coaches would work? The full bogies at the ends could be motored with shorter gaps above single axles in the middle. Not sure about axle loads,though it works for Talgo trains.... As explained by DavidBAU in post #2271, the single deck spaces are for people in wheelchairs and those who cannot work with the stairs. Of course, all seats will be made longitudinal. Some poles will be replaced too, particularly that 4 sided thing that everyone bangs their heads on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) If doors are not an issue why have TfL specified 3 sets per vehicle to cope on Crossrail. We already know there are widespread concerns that Thameslink will not be able to meet its target of 24 tph in the core due to station dwell times. Having anything less than 2 sets of wide doors evenly spaced along the car simply won't work on the peak time SE services due to passenger volumes and would wreck the timetable. Not particularly helpful if your new wonderful double deck trains end up reducing the number of trains that can run..... Of course having a double deck is usually incompatible with doors at 1/3rd and 2/3rd positions, particularly with high level platforms where end doorways above the bogies are more logical These are the demands for modern trains, the double deck design would have been dated in the late 1980's or early 1990's. I don't know if this was a real concern during that period but I don't see this really as an issue, but I'll put it into consideration. Correct me if I'm wrong. Edited February 13, 2018 by DoubleDeckInterurban Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted February 13, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13, 2018 Essentially like the APT! I see your point with the Hastings DEMU and the Mk1, they do look very different in terms of width. So are you saying that I should revert to the width to 9' 0''? Except that now takes you back to the problem of the lower part of the carriage body too wide to be accommodated within the UK loading gauge! Not so easy as you thought is it - and maybe why no UK train designer has ever attempted a true double deck train in the UK (the 4DD units wern't true double deck trains as we now know them). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Except that now takes you back to the problem of the lower part of the carriage body too wide to be accommodated within the UK loading gauge! Not so easy as you thought is it - and maybe why no UK train designer has ever attempted a true double deck train in the UK (the 4DD units wern't true double deck trains as we now know them). So keep it 8' 8''? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Use a nice, curvy shape? (LH profile could be for the cab ends). 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Tilt Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Essentially like the APT! I see your point with the Hastings DEMU and the Mk1, they do look very different in terms of width. So are you saying that I should revert to the width to 9' 0''? Eh? What's like an APT? Neither version of the APT needed steps to reach the platforms because it was full gauge width at around 1 ft above floor level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Eh? What's like an APT? Neither version of the APT needed steps to reach the platforms because it was full gauge width at around 1 ft above floor level. Didn't the APT have steps? Correct me if I'm wrong. They're pointless now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) Use a nice, curvy shape? (LH profile could be for the cab ends). British Double deck.jpg Clearly making a straight sided EMU into a curved sided one doesn't work well. I think I may need to completely rework it. I might try a Double Deck Class 365. THE DAMN THING LOOKS LIKE A NETWORKER NOW! EDIT: I will rework the design, will will be basically the same but now it will look more 'British'. Edited February 14, 2018 by DoubleDeckInterurban 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now