Imaginary Locomotives

[melmerby]

 

 

My main query is surely this is influenced by vehicle length (hence the old GWR Centenary stock beloved of Hornby having tapered recessed end lobbies).

 

The GWR had bigger coaches than the Centenary stock

There were 70' x 9' 7" vehicles wandering around the system long before then.

 

Keith

Edited February 17, 2018 by melmerby

[BernardTPM]

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

 

That's something like the way the BAC train shown here works, only the offset gangway is on the lower deck so the top deck gangway can be at the highest (middle) point. If you line up on the profile where the lower deck windows come, you find they would be 'S' shaped!

Edited February 17, 2018 by BernardTPM

[DCB]

yes, for now.....

 

Oh dear.  There has to be someone in Government who will think stacking passengers horizontally is something worth exploring,as a way to assure commuters that standing will soon be a thing of the past.   Remember Government never has any money for anything useful but plenty of money to waste on things like 410 B1s and APTs.

 

As for Oxfam I stopped supporting them when I found 60% of their receipts went on expenses and the CEO earned more than the PM. That is a business not a charity.

[rockershovel]

Oh dear.  There has to be someone in Government who will think stacking passengers horizontally is something worth exploring,as a way to assure commuters that standing will soon be a thing of the past.   Remember Government never has any money for anything useful but plenty of money to waste on things like 410 B1s and APTs.

 

As for Oxfam I stopped supporting them when I found 60% of their receipts went on expenses and the CEO earned more than the PM. That is a business not a charity.

I’ve heard Overseas Aid described as “an outdoor relief scheme for the political and upper middle classes, replacing the Church in providing both income and self-defined moral justification”, akin to the benefited clergy of a former age who devoted themselves to angling and the like.

[rockershovel]

Having had a good deal of experience of travelling in such places, that bus/capsule hotel looks quite spectacularly dreadful....

[FPH 603]

(Stupid computer! sent reply before finishing and can't edit!)

 

The above was based on your side and front end profile pictures on the previous page. depending on the intended vintage of this DD unit, it may be worth looking at uk single deck examples from a similar era to see what the trend was at the time in high capacity suburban areas. For example, end corridors at the driving cabs have been common at various times. Also, other than pacers, I can't think of any Multiple units with angular faces instead of rounded faces (and this is where someone comes along with angular examples ) Once the body profile and seating layout is there, it's just aesthetics on how it looks.

The class 151's (Metro Cammell prototype Sprinters) had angular fronts, but the sides were also angular. The vintage of the Double Deck unit I am designing would be late 1980's - early 1990's, and I had a look at what you meant about end gangways and found that there was more of a trend for DMU's rather than EMU's having end gangways during this period, a few did have end doors without gangways whilst majority had no door at all. And in the post before the one quoted you mentioned the side profile not being curved enough - this is exactly the same as the end elevation and I don't see this as an issue, I will make a second mock up soon but I will need to finalise a few things before I do this.

[BernardTPM]

The 151s were very smart units; a shame they ended up going to waste.

[FPH 603]

The 151s were very smart units; a shame they ended up going to waste.

The 150's may have been technically better in performance, but the 151's were certainly more stylish.

[Coryton]

  Remember Government never has any money for anything useful but plenty of money to waste on things like 410 B1s and APTs.

 

Or all the infrastructure improvements on the railways in the last few years?

[Regularity]

The ECML electrification northward from Peterborough was part-funded by the EU (or whatever or was called then): stepping in where (Thatcher’s) UK government fell short.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Wasn't it the non-standard bogies that let the 151 down? They are certainly a nice unit.

[BernardTPM]

The bogies were different (possibly related to those on the D78 Underground stock?) but just being non-standard in general would have made them 'awkward'. The saloon windows certainly were well laid out to afford good views; a shame they didn't go to a preserved line.

[Coryton]

The ECML electrification northward from Peterborough was part-funded by the EU (or whatever or was called then): stepping in where (Thatcher’s) UK government fell short.

 

That's interesting.

 

i thought it was all done with investment from BR, having made the case to the government that it would make whatever the required return on investment was at the time.

[Regularity]

There were large placards at various places along the line advertising the funding. I recall seeing them circa 1990.

[Corbs]

errrrr....

Edited February 19, 2018 by Corbs

[Regularity]

Nice, but the connecting rod big end appears to connect to a brake hanger.

[Corbs]

Nice, but the connecting rod big end appears to connect to a brake hanger.

Knew I'd forgotten something, fixed it now

[FPH 603]

I've lost motivation to continue on my my double deck design, but if anyone has any suggestions to add to it that would be great!

 

EDIT: I have another project in store, this being a 442 class styled DMU which is currently being drawn up.

Edited February 18, 2018 by DoubleDeckInterurban

[Clearwater]

errrrr....

GWR-282-2.jpg

Wouldn't an eight wheeled tender be more appropriate? Perhaps a larger water and coal capacity?

[Tiptonian]

Corbs. I really rate and appreciate your work, but the WR 2-8-2 tender looks too big, as if it has been drawn to a larger scale than the loco. If you look at a drawing of the 47xx, you will see what I mean. This is meant constructively, as I could never match your talent with the keyboard or the razor saw!

 

Best wishes,

Al.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Tiptonian

[Corbs]

Corbs. I really rate and appreciate your work, but the WR 2-8-2 tender looks too big, as if it has been drawn to a larger scale than the loco. If you look at a drawing of the 47xx, you will see what I mean. This is meant constructively, as I could never match your talent with the keyboard or the razor saw!

 

Best wishes,

Al.

Yes the scale was all wrong, I've changed it a bit now for an 8 wheeler to a more accurate scale.

[Bloodnok]

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)

My first model of a double deck train to UK loading gauge was in 2004. I missed the difference between the static and kinematic parts of W6 gauge for quite some time.

 

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.

Yes, they will. The problem with the 11 metre talgo though isn't overthrow -- it's platform access. With the conventional layout, you get easy access to platforms at platform height. On the Talgo, you'll have to create that, likely in the middle of a specific vehicle. That will chew space. Oh, and packaging. Where do you put drivetrain and so on. Talgo's typically have a locomotive at one or both ends, which isn't the desired pattern for a commuter train.

 

A 'pocket wagon' (KTA? KQA? Something like that) might be a good starting point to look at the length between pivot points.

These illustrate the point I was making. They are 19.8m long over buffers with a relatively long bogie pivot distance and clear 40ft long well. But they are only ~2.55m wide (8ft ISO standard container width plus the width of the wagon walls -- not much). They give up nearly an entire foot of width over what you can get away with above platform height. And still they run the brake pipes above platform level the full length of the wagon.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Bloodnok

[Regularity]

[Pocket wagons]

These illustrate the point I was making. They are 19.8m long over buffers with a relatively long bogie pivot distance and clear 40ft long well. But they are only ~2.55m wide (8ft ISO standard container width plus the width of the wagon walls -- not much). They give up nearly an entire foot of width over what you can get away with above platform height. And still they run the brake pipes above platform level the full length of the wagon.

So, with 8’ of width, we can probably get 2 seats plus a walkway in what is becoming a very claustrophobic space. Given that we also require bigger areas for entraining/detraining of passengers, plus stairways up and down, I suspect that the gain in number of seats is marginal - or possibly negative.

 

As someone who commuted into London for 4 years, usually on semi-fasts that didn’t stop between Woking and Waterloo using Mk1 based slam-door stock, standing was not usually necessary except for a few people between those points, and then for 30 minutes. This stock had 3+2 seating, except in first class. Replacing the first class compartments - about 25% of the available units - with standard class would have done more for creating extra seats than anything else.

 

On stock working a more obviously suburban cycle, there were plenty of vacant seats off-peak, and the real need was to increase the standing room during peak hours, which modern stock - particularly London Transport’s (tfl?) surface line trains - is now doing. This is a far more effective (in terms of passenger capacity and cost) way of doing things than creating elaborate engineering solutions that don’t really solve anything.

[Bloodnok]

So, with 8’ of width, we can probably get 2 seats plus a walkway in what is becoming a very claustrophobic space. Given that we also require bigger areas for entraining/detraining of passengers, plus stairways up and down, I suspect that the gain in number of seats is marginal - or possibly negative.

It's respectably positive if you can compare 2+2 on each deck to 2+2 on a single deck -- the double deck part is well worth the stairwells.

 

The moment you have to start comparing 2+2 on each deck to 3+2 on a single deck or 2+1 on each deck to 2+2 on a single deck, it starts being marginal on seating capacity.

 

If the width gets restricted to the point you're having to compare 2+1 to 3+2, then it's firmly in the negative.

 

As someone who commuted into London for 4 years, usually on semi-fasts that didn’t stop between Woking and Waterloo using Mk1 based slam-door stock, standing was not usually necessary except for a few people between those points, and then for 30 minutes. This stock had 3+2 seating, except in first class. Replacing the first class compartments - about 25% of the available units - with standard class would have done more for creating extra seats than anything else.

 

Some of the similar trains I rode on had done just that -- either the budget version, achieved by peeling the stickers off, or in some cases replacing all the compartments with bench seats (same side-corridor pattern, just with no actual corridor walls).

 

I used to like these particular seats, the four-wide seat benches they put there were more comfortable than wedging myself into the 2+3 section.

 

On stock working a more obviously suburban cycle, there were plenty of vacant seats off-peak, and the real need was to increase the standing room during peak hours, which modern stock - particularly London Transport’s (tfl?) surface line trains - is now doing. This is a far more effective (in terms of passenger capacity and cost) way of doing things than creating elaborate engineering solutions that don’t really solve anything.

 

You are absolutely correct for inner suburban service patterns - these should prioritise standing space and loading/unloading speed, which is exactly what TFL does.

 

Outer suburban and intercity services where people expect a seat is where double deck may have a role to play.

 

An interesting case study is Japan. It's not uncommon to see double deck first class coaches in trains where the standard class is more loading speed and standing space optimised:

 

It's worth noting they don't seem to have the issue with centre overhang that we do...

Edited February 19, 2018 by Bloodnok

[runs as required]

It's respectably positive if you can compare 2+2 on each deck to 2+2 on a single deck -- the double deck part is well worth the stairwells.

 

The moment you have to start comparing 2+2 on each deck to 3+2 on a single deck or 2+1 on each deck to 2+2 on a single deck, it starts being marginal on seating capacity.

 

If the width gets restricted to the point you're having to compare 2+1 to 3+2, then it's firmly in the negative.

 

 

Some of the similar trains I rode on had done just that -- either the budget version, achieved by peeling the stickers off, or in some cases replacing all the compartments with bench seats (same side-corridor pattern, just with no actual corridor walls).

 

I used to like these particular seats, the four-wide seat benches they put there were more comfortable than wedging myself into the 2+3 section.

 

 

You are absolutely correct for inner suburban service patterns - these should prioritise standing space and loading/unloading speed, which is exactly what TFL does.

 

Outer suburban and intercity services where people expect a seat is where double deck may have a role to play.

 

An interesting case study is Japan. It's not uncommon to see double deck first class coaches in trains where the standard class is more loading speed and standing space optimised:

 

It's worth noting they don't seem to have the issue with centre overhang that we do...

But they look to be very short coaches - a bit like Inner circle stock.

I've been fiddling (in my head because we are down in Rugby childminding through half term) with the architecture of a Talgo DD during the 4 hour motorway journeys entailed.

 

I took a BRMk 3, split into 2 no. 11 metre Talgo units, and had the platform height mezzanine access over every alternate wheel set. l only had one power car at the pivot ed of the push pull Talgo set (as seem to be used in ReR and FS DD consists trains)

This - in my head - seems to deliver 2+3 upstairs; 2+2 (tightish) downstairs.  plan and sections to follow.

I've had experience of these on fairly lengthy Regional commutes (just single class) through the latter part of my working life and far preferred a "snug" steamy early morning February seat upstars or down from Perugia to Rome to the hell of a 4SUB in from Bromley South.

 

dh

Edited February 19, 2018 by runs as required