Imaginary Locomotives

[HAB]

Eh?  I hope not. I only "know old stuff", but most diesel locos up to class 50 and including HST were about 12' 10", and a lot of steam locomotives were over 13'.  Only 0-4-0Ts and 0-6-0Ts were down to 12'6" or less. Are our railways shrinking?

 

Yes they are - have you been somewhere else for the past 23 years?

 

Why else would it be that a "King" could spend 50 years happily running all over the system, then suddenly get its safety valve knocked off running into Paddington. Same with a Duchess at York.    And also why owners of main line steam locos are having to spend a fortune on lowering them by 4" and narrowing them by 2.

 

By the way, there is a massive difference between "over 13 ft" and 13'6". 

 

Just also to mention that Satan's Goldfish has posted STRUCTURE Guages - that is not same as the kenematic envelope for any given vehicle. 

 

As for a one inch thick roof skin....

 

All of which says to me that there are very good reasons whey there are no DD vehicles in the UK - and no one who ever stepped into one of Bullied's efforts would ever doubt it - modern technology has not prevented up all from getting taller (on average!!). 

 

Best wishes,

[Regularity]

I don't know how well modern aviation materials and techniques would cope with crashworthiness requirements though, which tends to be where clever "why hasn't anyone else thought of making a really lightweight train?" ideas fall down, I think.

Hopefully that’s because when an aeroplane crashes it is a single vehicle but when a railway carriage crashes it is part of a train rather than any inherent lack of crashworthiness within the aviation industry?

[Satan's Goldfish]

kinematic envelope! that was the wording I couldn't think of when I put 'movement through suspension'. cheers. (is there a gauge diagram for that anywhere?) Research needed on crash worthiness of laminated materials, honeycomb structures, etc. Obviously not that good at 500mph...... Just how cramped can that headroom be made to be to create more sensible material thicknesses? (I know there's such things as physical limitations in the real world, but this is the Imaginary Locomotives thread after all and it's nice to let the mind work. Solutions or suggestions to any issues would be nice instead of just saying it can't be done. We're all aware the DD in UK gauge issue is a tough one to crack, but it does seem to keep coming up in the cyclic nature of this thread. Of course, in the imaginary world we could give ourselves a little more loading gauge (Berne height but still with UK platforms) but where's the fun? )

[TheQ]

Double deckers on the Great Central Railway  HS2?

[Regularity]

Re loading gauges, read this: https://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/groups-and-committees/2013-guide-vehicle-structure-sic-guide-to-british-gauging-t926.pdf

 

As it points out, various changes to accommodate wider and taller containers, plus vat]riots other factors, mean that steam locomotives are now classed as “out of gauge” for general us, requiring clearance for specific routes, and the removal of “go anywhere” permissions.

 

Also, the key issue for expanding the U.K. loading gauge is not so much the time and cost for widening the envelope, but the impact this would all have on existing stock and new stock: it would all require power-operated retractable steps capable of working interchangeably with both old and new platforms.

 

Moving to double deck trains, even if you set aside the loading gauge issue (!) the key impact is the increased dwell time at stations whilst passengers entrain/detrain: that is going to decrease the line capacity far more than the increase in the number of seated passengers that can be carried. Page 63 of the document referenced above makes specific reference to this point.

 

At grouping, the railway companies found that a composite/universal English loading gauge had a height of 12’ 10”, whereas in Scotland this could be increased - at the apex - to 13’ 6”. I have no idea what the GWR had, but it is entirely feasible that theirs was more generous, and that the W6 “universal” loading gauge is lower, hence the problem with the Kings.

 

In short, the biggest single issue with our loading gauge is the reduced width below 43” above the rail, to accommodate our platforms. That’s not going to change. All of the other issues generally relate to putting square boxes on top of this (for containers).

 

No one would design an imaginary locomotive based on a requirement for, say, a broader gauge (larger inside cylinders, say) so what is the point in taking that approach to the loading gauge?

 

The simple fact is, double track trains would only be practical on a newly built dedicated railway, and would lack any form of interchangeability with the rest of the system, so may as well be built to a different track gauge. No amount of playing around with designs is going to change that.

[Bloodnok]

Eh?  I hope not. I only "know old stuff", but most diesel locos up to class 50 and including HST were about 12' 10", and a lot of steam locomotives were over 13'.  Only 0-4-0Ts and 0-6-0Ts were down to 12'6" or less. Are our railways shrinking?

Yes. Someone put all these pesky wires up, for a start.

 

Design loading gauge for vehicles is 3.965m high now, and while there's lots of potential to make it more square because of work done for container trains (which will likely be very useful for imaginary double deck trains), it is highly unlikely to go up in the middle without a LOT of work.

 

(3.965m is 13' and a tenth of an inch for those who are metrically challenged).

[JDW]

I know I'm posting a lot in this thread this morning, but here goes another. I've been looking at the DD in Britain issue, I found a couple of loading gauge guides on line (so hopefully the picture is accurate!) and created the below, hence my head height clearance question above. Using modern aviation materials and construction techniques it shouldn't be impossible, I've allowed 3" for floor thickness and 1" for roof skin, with the majority of the weight being transferred through the sides. Things get squiffy on head clearance as soon as you start adding lights and other fixings. Lower deck windows would be just above platform height, upper deck windows would need to become part of the roof to be of any use. This is obviously a 'fixed' loading gauge diagram and doesn't take into account body movement through suspension, which would limit the dimensions a little more. But I think I'm going to use it as a starting point to see what I can come up with.

 

I think in a way you've managed to prove here why it won't work.  3'5" on the top deck from floor to start of ceiling.  Lets say that gives around 4' at the centreline of the seat by the window.  Or be generous and say even 4'6".  It simply isn't enough to be able to sit down comfortably without your shoulder being against the wall/ceiling!  

[TheQ]

the GWR loading gauge on the lines Kings ran on was 13ft 5 inches, however kings could not run everywhere on GWR.

Some lines are having / had  their loading gauges increased.. mainly those to shipping container ports..

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/freight/single-view/view/gauge-enhancement-work-completed.html

[Regularity]

Post got duplicated.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Regularity

[runs as required]

1

...there are very good reasons whey there are no DD vehicles in the UK,  no one who ever stepped into one of Bullied's efforts would ever doubt it - modern technology has not prevented up all from getting taller (on average!!).

Strange to say I was (an unlikely young smart ar$e) appointed straight from 'college' into a pre Beeching BR(E) CCE'S 'Research Group' working with with an over-awing group of engineers and architects way above my pay-grade.

A number of them were ex LT and BR(S) creative spirits who lived around Blackheath so there was a regular ritual once a week or so of dicking off early to ride the 4DD out of London Bridge to Blackheath that included 'smelling'  the strange pallete of materials' used by that 1940s Bulleid team.

 

[incidentally that Escher 'tesselation style' DD section was 'imported' from abroad and already used in Crellin Duplex PSVs

In my 1949/50+ plus teenage years a regular summer 'evening tour' worked past our stark "dark Peak" house by such a vehicle.  It gave out a distinctive Foden 2 stroke supercharged diesel bellow as it battled up the hill out of our mill village across to Macc (and return to Cheshire civilisation).

 

2

I don't know how well modern aviation materials and techniques would cope with crashworthiness requirements though, which tends to be where clever "why hasn't anyone else thought of making a really lightweight train?" ideas fall down, I think.

and

Hopefully that’s because when an aeroplane crashes it is a single vehicle but when a railway carriage crashes it is part of a train rather than any inherent lack of crashworthiness within the aviation industry?

In the above Research Group we had regular visits from engineerng 'dreamers' who would pitch their ideas to us on exciting silideshow afternoons in the 'Chief's' darkened office.

A memorable series were by the Bristol Aeroplane Co trying to generate BR interest in an injection moulded plastic\foam laminate (alternative to the forthcoming XP2 and Mark IIs ?) as having a far superior crash resistance to contemporary UI standards. They proposed giant male/female coach length rail mounted mass concrete moulds.

 

All this 'Futurism' abruptly died after 'the Good Doctor' walked around Kings + for the first time - it was time to move on.

dd

Edited February 16, 2018 by runs as required

[Corbs]

But if the passengers were horizontal, we could stack them higher and fit more of them in...

[BernardTPM]

Sleeper commuter trains... brilliant.

[BernardTPM]

Design loading gauge for vehicles is 3.965m high now, and while there's lots of potential to make it more square because of work done for container trains (which will likely be very useful for imaginary double deck trains), it is highly unlikely to go up in the middle without a LOT of work.

The 1960s proposals were both 13' 1" high (and one 9' 1" wide), so now just out of gauge! Even then that only gave a maximum 6' 1" headroom on both decks.

[runs as required]

But if the passengers were horizontal, we could stack them higher and fit more of them in...

What about this Indian Tri-decker 'Rollende Hotel' charter train?

dh

[Coryton]

What about this Indian Tri-decker 'Rollende Hotel' charter train?

Tridecker.jpg

dh

 

I think that's actually a bus...or rather a trailer for one.

[Corbs]

yes, for now.....

[Bloodnok]

The key thing people (including for some time ... myself) missed when designing imaginary UK double deck stock, is that below the platform level, the entire W gauge series is dynamic -- meaning as drawn it does not take into consideration any curve overhang. This is fine if what you are checking for gauging is suspension, bogies, etc -- things that typically move with the wheels and don't overhang by a significant margin.

But once you want to put a wide well in that space, you need to take into consideration the centre overhang. On the typical bogie pivots taken from a 20m or 23m coach on a relatively sharp corner, you lose a significant amount of width below platform level which will result in a very odd shape train, and further restrict your seating pattern on the lower deck. Exactly how much you lose depends on what the tightest curve radius is that you'll have a platform on...

This is why there's that concave crease in the side of the train I linked to. I thought it was ugly, and started designing my own to avoid it, but I think it's unavoidable -- you need your lower deck to be this much narrower but have flat sides, and your upper deck to be this much wider. Change either and you are giving up significant space on one or other deck for appearance reasons...

It's also interesting they've gone for upmarket travel in their example, the obviousness of the width restrictions is somewhat minimised with 2+1 seating on both decks.

[Satan's Goldfish]

As it looks like the actually height these days isn't 13'6", sod it! The scope is almost there but not without a touch more height clearance.

[runs as required]

The key thing people (including for some time ... myself) missed when designing imaginary UK double deck stock, is that below the platform level, the entire W gauge series is dynamic -- meaning as drawn it does not take into consideration any curve overhang. This is fine if what you are checking for gauging is suspension, bogies, etc -- things that typically move with the wheels and don't overhang by a significant margin.

But once you want to put a wide well in that space, you need to take into consideration the centre overhang. On the typical bogie pivots taken from a 20m or 23m coach on a relatively sharp corner, you lose a significant amount of width below platform level which will result in a very odd shape train, and further restrict your seating pattern on the lower deck. Exactly how much you lose depends on what the tightest curve radius is that you'll have a platform on...

 

I find this "thing people (including for some time ... myself) miss" puzzling - you yourself drew attention to the Talgo principle (in that pic I recopied in #2836 at noon today)

Clearly those articulated Talgo coach chassis will have far less 'overhang/throw over' at platform level and below than a 23 metre (75, 6") coach.

An articulated 11 metre Talgo coach length might be an acceptable 2+2 seat (2.4 metre) width at lower deck level in terms of.'overhang/throw over'.

 

Ed

I haven't actually quantified this by plotting it out graphically on plan yet, looking forward to setting it out when my unheated computer room gets a bit warmer at night.

 

dh

Edited February 16, 2018 by runs as required

[runs as required]

I think that's actually a bus...or rather a trailer for one.

and

yes, for now.....

 

"Ach so... Britischen!" and I thought I'd cunningly disguised it.

That Das Rollende Hotel trailer towed overland from N Afrika behind a very dusty O302 Benz bus used to regularly arrive at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology swimming pool in Kumasi Ghana while wife and I and 3 small children were posted there through the first half of the 1970s.The weary travellers would allow our kids to crawl into those appallingly claustrophobic sleeping coffins.

 

OTbit

Fake News

We were all, of course, enjoying sex parties in the pool funded by Oxfam

 

Real News:

Oxfam did actually fund "Small is Beautiful" rural projects locally drawn-up by my hero Fritz Schumacher in response to villagers own priorities - such as women's soap plants and local kente cloth weaving and fabric dying co-ops. I was extremely lucky to be invited into assisting in these projects with my KNUST students. This is why I shall continue with my monthly dd to Oxfam out of my pension.

I found journalists, businessmen and politicians of all stripes to be far more implicated in encouraging sex sleaze and corruption.

 

dd

[Regularity]

I found journalists, businessmen and politicians of all stripes to be far more implicated in encouraging sex sleaze and corruption.

 

Ah, but they weren’t doing using money donated to a worthwhile cause.

 

That said, I think it has all been blown up out of all proportion. What happened to “lessons learned, expectations revised, corrections made clear, move on”?

[Satan's Goldfish]

I find this "thing people (including for some time ... myself) miss" puzzling - you yourself drew attention to the Talgo principle (in that pic I recopied in #2836 at noon today)

Clearly those articulated Talgo coach chassis will have far less 'overhang/throw over' at platform level and below than a 23 metre (75, 6") coach.

An articulated 11 metre Talgo coach length might be an acceptable 2+2 seat (2.4 metre) width at lower deck level in terms of.'overhang/throw over'.

 

Ed

I haven't actually quantified this by plotting it out graphically on plan yet, looking forward to setting it out when my unheated computer room gets a bit warmer at night.

 

dh

A 'pocket wagon' (KTA? KQA? Something like that) might be a good starting point to look at the length between pivot points. They have slab like sides down to a low level, a 12 meter (40ft for the imperial) well between the bogies, and are a little over 8ft (2.4m for the metric!) wide. By their very design intention they fit inside the unenhanced loading gauge. (W6?)

 

Edit; the entire vehicle is obviously longer than a single 40ft container because of the additional bogie length, so is considerably longer than an 11 meter talgo unit. Therefore a shorter vehicle should be able to be wider than that and still fit the envelope on an equivalent curve.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Satan's Goldfish

[PhilJ W]

What about a side gangway like the old low bridge buses?

[Coryton]

"Ach so... Britischen!" and I thought I'd cunningly disguised it.

 

 

 

You did...but then gave it away by describing it as a "Rollender Hotel" which made it far too easy to do an image search for....

[runs as required]

What about a side gangway like the old low bridge buses?

Interesting!

Offhand I reckon an old lowbridge ECW/Bristol K floor to ceiling height over the long seats was no more than 5' 0" (1.5 metres) - very steamed-up on a cold winter's morning with everyone coughing horribly over their first few Woodbine/Park Drive smokes of the day.

dh