Double-deck trains for Waterloo

[trisonic]

Without solving the loading gauge issue. We have both low and high (normal to the UK) platforms on our local commuter line.

 

These work well:

 

 

Best, Pete.

[Joseph_Pestell]

UK has a permanent derogation on the EU interoperability directive concerning gauging. It isn't that UK wants to operate a museum piece, it is just economically unfeasible to consider a change to UIC gauge. We usually make the best use of the space available and have a much more scientific based approach to gauging than the UIC approach. (There was an exception in recent years when risk aversion took precedence over sound engineering, but hopefully we are past that now). Laser Rail - now part of Balfour Beatty - had this down to a fine art.

 

So the space envelope isn't going to change (except by small increments) so any double deck design will need to comply with what we have now. A possible answer might be shorter articulated vehicles with doors over the bogies with an offset gangway (ie the bogie being under the end of one vehicle). This would allow the lower deck to be between the bogies on trailer cars (Sydney springs to mind). Motor cars could be single deck and use that space for equipment. Short vehicles can be wider than long ones so the issue with clearances at low heights above rail becomes less of an issue. I am sure a modern engineering solution is possible, but will it happen? Almost certainly not.

 

If you want high capacity stock with short dwell times, then 5 doors per side and limited seating is the answer. Great for a metro, but not so good for long distances. A former MD of Thameslink - an excellent mechanical engineer to boot - once remarked that it was impossible to design the perfect stock for Thameslink. At the centre of the route it required metro configurations with lots of doors, but at the ends of the route it required comfortable seats. Whoever solves this issue will have a winning design.

 

I agree with your Thameslink friend. That is a totally impossible conundrum. You can not design one train that fulfils both purposes. Even the RER in Paris suffers from an effort to compromise on the stock (except arguably Line E). (Edit to add: I believe that RATP will have to address this via a fare structure that encourages only passengers to/from the suburbs to use RER with passengers making journeys wholly within Paris sticking to the Metro)

 

The proposal in that document is for rush-hour only operation on the mainline from Southampton and Basingstoke. So the number of doors can be reduced a bit. Design might need to be modified for lesser distances e.g. Guildford - Waterloo but one might do that just by removing seating and loos from single-deck areas.

 

In a pure Metro/short-distance scenario, double-deck stock becomes very difficult as you can not provide enough doors. Only solution then would be very big tunnels and bi-level platforms.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Those who are dismissing this out of hand need to look at why DD stock is again being considered for this specific line.

 

The SWML commuter routes into Waterloo are seeing trains being extended to 10 cars long (many already have been for years).

This will only ease the overcrowding at peak times.

There are now limited options for providing extra capacity to meet the expected passenger demand over the next few decades (2020 - 2040).

 

Further extension of trains is also very difficult and not feasible for a large part of the SW network.

It will also be very expensive in infrastructure terms and will realistically only provide a limited boost in train capacity, disproportionate to the huge cost involved.

 

Solutions include ATO (automatic train operation) inwards from the London suburbs to Waterloo, to reduce headways and squeeze more trains in. Again there's a limit to what can be achieved through this.

Crossrail 2, relieving Waterloo, but requiring massive infrastructure investment, not only on the tunnels and their infrastructure, but also in major enhancements to the suburban and main lines.

Double Deck stock on the heavily used core route. Again, not only expensive, but problematic as described in detail by others above.

 

What is quite clear, is that all of the above WILL have to be done to provide capacity beyond 2040, if future passenger growth predictions are accurate.

There are predictions that the UK's population could swell by 12 million by 2030. A large proportion of that growth will gravitate to London and the SE of England, putting even greater stress on the capitals transport infrastructure.

Sweeping issues like this under the carpet shouldn't be an option, despite years of successive governments having expertise in doing just that.

 

Stationmaster (Mike) and others have explained why DD trains are just too difficult and expensive. They are absolutely right, but those obstacles have to be tackled head on. Nothing should be ruled out.

 

 

p.s. NR carried out a very detailed study into modern full DD stock and longer trains for the SWML route, about 5 or 6 years ago. NR reports say a new study will progress the DD issue, so they are taking it very seriously.

Two of the major height restrictions, that would need more than just bridge replacement are the Aqueduct near Frimley Green and the girder rail bridges between Clapham Jnct and Waterloo.

.

 

.

[railsquid]

For general reference, here's a page with a cut-away diagram of a 4-DD car, showing it's not a true double-decker, more a set of "stacked and and staggered compartments": http://www.bulleidlocos.org.uk/_oth/4_dd.aspx

 

Do I understand correctly that gauge restrictions would prevent the space between the bogies being used effectively?

[Joseph_Pestell]

The Bombardier site has some nice info that gives a good indication of what is currently done and should inspire as to what can be achieved. The pictures show that the coaches have spacious (by UK standards) accommodation, and each intermediate coach is 26.8m long and accommodates 108 seated passengers (73 second class 2+2 and 35 first class 2+1 which is a big improvement on the 64 2+2 seats on a comparable 25m or so long coach. Note how unlike a Pendolino the windows are at eye level rather than near the ground - it can be done even on a double decker!

 

http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains/double-deck-coaches.html

 

There is accommodation for the disabled and people with luggage with step free access to 7 seats per coach, that would extend to 50+ for a 10-coach train. I have only seen the Bombardier trains as push-pull loco hauled stock, but I suspect they could be 10-car EMUs. Double deck EMUs from other manufacturers are very similar at first glance and have very similar internal layout. It would not be the end of the world if EMU sets had to include single deck driving motor trailers at each end (or one end if 5-car half sets splittable for off-peak). Push pull sets can be 8-car sets with just a single BO-BO loco in Europe, so one power car should not be too much of a problem.

 

Remember that this should all fit in to W10 (with possible narrowing of the lower deck) so there will be plenty of routes with AC where these trains could already run. Presumably Stratford to Stowmarket should already be clear for some capacity improvement trials if Waterloo is not yet ready...

 

... Bring it on! It has to be an improvement over having to stand on a Desiro for a couple of hours because the 3+2 seats are too uncomfortable to sit on. Even a slight reduction in the headroom is less important when you can sit down.

 

Because of our gauge constraints, the Bombardier Omnio would not work here. But there are certainly some design ideas there which could form the basis to an alternative design for long-distance double-deck trains to the one that I am thinking of.

[Joseph_Pestell]

For general reference, here's a page with a cut-away diagram of a 4-DD car, showing it's not a true double-decker, more a set of "stacked and and staggered compartments": http://www.bulleidlocos.org.uk/_oth/4_dd.aspx

 

Do I understand correctly that gauge restrictions would prevent the space between the bogies being used effectively?

 

It does not absolutely prevent using the space between the bogies, just makes it very difficult.

[jjb1970]

The problem with these arguments is that they tend to get polarised and quite polemical. We are seeing comments about the UK having a railway system which is a museum and Victorian. No, we have a railway with a smaller loading gauge than many others which originated in the Victorian era however in terms of moving people from A to B efficiently it does an excellent job. Ditto the London underground, yes the trains are small and a lot of the infrastructure is old but take a look at how extensive the network is and the intensity of service then tell me how many other cities in the world provide a better mass transit railway. I've used a lot of railways in the world, inluding many that are always held up as being better than ours and in all honesty the only country that I really do think offers a better overall service is Japan. There may be some, but not many. Railways don't exist to win technical awards or as an engineers play ground, they're there to move things and people. When looking at spending money the objectives should be improvement in services, not just looking at keeping up with the Jones's. The real issue with the UK is loading gauge, to change that is hugely expensive. Within the constraints of the loading gauge UK railways are very well run and fully competitive with others with the single exception that we have fallen behind in high speed. However to most UK passengers high speed inter-city trains are a lot less relevant than mass movement of people in and out of cities at rush hour. And if you have a look at London in particular it does an excellent job moving millions of people in and out safely, reliably and pretty quickly on a daily basis. Would changing the loading gauge to UIC standards (or lets think big, go for North American standards, why be constrained to another loading gauge which is second best!!!) be beneficial? Of course it would. Would the costs involved offer a lot of benefits more quickly and more meaningful to the average customer if invested in other rail improvement projects? Probably. When building HS2 and in looking at particular rail corridor improvements moving to UIC gauge makes sense I think, but throwing around general comments that we should convert the network is not a good idea, at least not to me.

[sagaguy]

Northampton & Lamport railway had one of the Bulleid DD trailers at their site for some years but i think its gone now,at least it`s not on their stock list.

 

    Ray.

[black and decker boy]

 It has to be an improvement over having to stand on a Desiro for a couple of hours because the 3+2 seats are too uncomfortable to sit on. Even a slight reduction in the headroom is less important when you can sit down.

In the modern day railway, you will get those same hard 3+2 seats on a double deck train, the same as every other new train being introduced.

 

I think they call it progress.

 

For me, the best seats were the 304 & 504 units in Manchester. Roasting hot and bouncy.

[phil-b259]

 

Further extension of trains is also very difficult and not feasible for a large part of the SW network.

It will also be very expensive in infrastructure terms and will realistically only provide a limited boost in train capacity, disproportionate to the huge cost involved.

.

 

Going DD will cost even more. Look nobody is saying solutions cannot be found - from an engineering point of view its perfectly doable - but due to the nature of the UK network DD operation will be far more expensive - not to mention disruptive to implement than is the case elsewhere in Europe. Particularly as in 99% of Europe, 'off the shelf' DD trains require no alterations to the infrastructure - completely different from the situation here. Its this latter aspect that most of those posting seem to ignore or dismiss but is one that weighs heavily on industry insiders and is why they remain skeptical it can be implamented, particularly as the average British voter, MP and Government only cares about the here and now and is unwilling to invest in the long term if at all possible - look at the complaints the London Bridge work is generating - then there is the HS2 debate, which depressingly remains dominated by "Little Englander" issues.

 

Going back to the SWT network though - while current plans have the suburbans only going to 10 cars, the resignalling work underway for areas controlled by Feltham panel will make passive provision for 12 car operation and this policy will also be adopted elsewhere on the suburban network where signalling alterations are required in future.

 

The big problem is in fact NOT the London suburban setup, its the longer distance services from Portsmouth / Southampton, etc which are already 12 cars. Lengthening these is problematic as the SWML signalling is based round 12 car trains and is not due to be replaced for many years (though control may transfer to Basingstoke ROC, much outside equipment is new enough to not need replacement - unlike the case at Feltham) and modifying Waterloo will be far harder than making all platforms 12 car capable.

[Suzie]

Look at any packed 360 leaving Liverpool Street in the peak and you will see that people are standing and seats are unoccupied. This really ought to tell the designers that proper 2+2 would be an improvement both in comfort and providing more standing room in slightly wider isles (the passengers are standing anyway!). 3+2 does not increase capacity over 2+2 in narrow bodied vehicles - it is just a sop to the political numbers game. Doing away with first class would increase capacity!

[Ron Ron Ron]

3+2 does not increase capacity over 2+2 in narrow bodied vehicles - it is just a sop to the political numbers game. 

 

Agreed 100%.

[railsquid]

Going slightly off topic, the Japanese middle-distance commuter trains (used for journeys of up to about two hours) I mentioned above tend to have a mixture of 2+2 "box" seating and bench seating, as well as the first class double-deck cars. No 2+3 seats on normal trains as far as I know.

[phil-b259]

Going slightly off topic, the Japanese middle-distance commuter trains (used for journeys of up to about two hours) I mentioned above tend to have a mixture of 2+2 "box" seating and bench seating, as well as the first class double-deck cars. No 2+3 seats on normal trains as far as I know.

 

As an observation, Japanese and other Asian peoples tend to be shorter and smaller than northern Europeans thanks to our genetic backgrounds. Thus it is possible that in Japan 3+2 seating actually doesn't feel quite so uncomfortable for the traveller than it is over here.

[4630]

As an observation, Japanese and other Asian peoples tend to be shorter and smaller than northern Europeans thanks to our genetic backgrounds. Thus it is possible that in Japan 3+2 seating actually doesn't feel quite so uncomfortable for the traveller than it is over here.

 

Unless you're unfortunate enough to join the carriage in Japan that just happens to be occupied by a group of Sumo wrestlers of course.     

[Ron Ron Ron]

Going DD will cost even more. Look nobody is saying solutions cannot be found - from an engineering point of view its perfectly doable - but due to the nature of the UK network DD operation will be far more expensive - not to mention disruptive to implement than is the case elsewhere in Europe.....

I do not disagree with any of that.

 

 

....particularly as the average British voter, MP and Government only cares about the here and now and is unwilling to invest in the long term if at all possible....

That's something this country excels at. We are world leaders in the field as well.

 

 

.

[railsquid]

As an observation, Japanese and other Asian peoples tend to be shorter and smaller than northern Europeans thanks to our genetic backgrounds. Thus it is possible that in Japan 3+2 seating actually doesn't feel quite so uncomfortable for the traveller than it is over here.

 

Seats on Japanese trains (whether normal or Shinkansen) are more generous than on British trains. I speak as an average sized European. I think the difference is an acceptance that at certain times of the day, not everyone is going to be able to get a seat, so more provision is made for standing. (Though they have now removed the standing-room-only-before-10am cars on the loop line).

[Edwin_m]

Mention of the Japanese reminds me that they haven't tried to rebuild their narrow-gauge network to match international standards.  They have made the best of what they have and also added new but separate lines to carry the principal passenger flows at higher speeds. 

 

Similarly, building a new and higher speed commuter line to the Solent, able to accommodate standard UIC stock including double deck, would certainly be far less disruptive and quite possibly cheaper than trying to adapt the SW main line to UIC gauge.  Given the number of times it seems to have been looked at in the past (I see three or four mentioned on this topic) and hasn't happened, I remain doubtful that DD can be made to work within UK loading gauge. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Mention of the Japanese reminds me that they haven't tried to rebuild their narrow-gauge network to match international standards.  They have made the best of what they have and also added new but separate lines to carry the principal passenger flows at higher speeds. 

 

Similarly, building a new and higher speed commuter line to the Solent, able to accommodate standard UIC stock including double deck, would certainly be far less disruptive and quite possibly cheaper than trying to adapt the SW main line to UIC gauge.  Given the number of times it seems to have been looked at in the past (I see three or four mentioned on this topic) and hasn't happened, I remain doubtful that DD can be made to work within UK loading gauge. 

 

One of the tragedies of the billions spent on WCML modernisation was that it could have been done just as cheaply by building from scratch and without messing up the service for years. HS2 could thus have been already in existence for many years now.

 

Finding a route from London to the Solent would be an interesting challenge.

[jjb1970]

I wouldn't say Asian people are particularly small anymore. I think it was once true that they were on average smaller than Europeans but nowadays as an average height European I am certainly no giant when I visit Asia and there is no shortage of large Asian's.

[Satan's Goldfish]

I thought size of a particular race of population was down to diet? Us westerners are larger in height as well as width due to the increase in fats in our more meaty diets over the last century which eastern countries are now catching up with (thanks to mcdonalds) rather than their traditional majority diet of rice. Look at any older cottage here in the uk, as a 6ft tall man I hit my head in the door ways of my parents 1915 cottage because people were shorter when it was built.

 

Anyway, that's getting O/T.

 

I'm a bit groggy full of ebola or manthrax or some such, but I can fully understand how 'simply' going UIC is not a cost effective answer to the DD issue here. However as already mentioned certain key routes have seen gauge upgrades to accomodate ohle and 9ft6in containers on standard height flat wagons (w10 gauge? (Like I said, groggy with manflu, I'd normally have this info to hand)) so gauge increases where it's been financially viable are not beyond the relms of possibility. For a purely paperwork exercise, can anyone post a link to a w10 gauge profile with measurements? UIC conversion is not sensibly possible on existing routes but what about (doing as us brits do best) creating a 'new' loading gauge that does fit within some of our constraints like platform height. If w10 works for that then we'd already be on the right track in some of the peak areas. Busy routes like GEML are already there thanks to the high volume of container traffic, I'm not 100% familiar with routes from Southampton but believe some routes may already be cleared judging by some of the container services I've seen passing Didcot.

[jamie92208]

I thought size of a particular race of population was down to diet? Us westerners are larger in height as well as width due to the increase in fats in our more meaty diets over the last century which eastern countries are now catching up with (thanks to mcdonalds) rather than their traditional majority diet of rice. Look at any older cottage here in the uk, as a 6ft tall man I hit my head in the door ways of my parents 1915 cottage because people were shorter when it was built.

 

Anyway, that's getting O/T.

 

I'm a bit groggy full of ebola or manthrax or some such, but I can fully understand how 'simply' going UIC is not a cost effective answer to the DD issue here. However as already mentioned certain key routes have seen gauge upgrades to accomodate ohle and 9ft6in containers on standard height flat wagons (w10 gauge? (Like I said, groggy with manflu, I'd normally have this info to hand)) so gauge increases where it's been financially viable are not beyond the relms of possibility. For a purely paperwork exercise, can anyone post a link to a w10 gauge profile with measurements? UIC conversion is not sensibly possible on existing routes but what about (doing as us brits do best) creating a 'new' loading gauge that does fit within some of our constraints like platform height. If w10 works for that then we'd already be on the right track in some of the peak areas. Busy routes like GEML are already there thanks to the high volume of container traffic, I'm not 100% familiar with routes from Southampton but believe some routes may already be cleared judging by some of the container services I've seen passing Didcot.

As far as I know its the Southampton- Didcot route that's been cleared to W10 but Not the onward route from Basingstoke to Waterloo.

 

Jamie

[Talltim]

I think I'm right in saying that W10 is not much/any higher but is wider in the top corners, to fit containers

Edited to make sense

[Xerces Fobe2]

One thing has changed since the 4DD's and that is the reduction in setting capacity on a lot of the new stock and as much as I dislike this it does provide more capacity without the need for massive infrastructure changes!

 

XF

[pete_mcfarlane]

The comments about increased station dwell times are interesting. All of the European double deck trains I've seen have been fairly short - 3/4/6 coaches. That suggests that the reasons for using them are economic rather than the need to provide extra passenger capacity - for example a 3 coach DD train is cheaper to buy and operate than a 6 coach single deck train.

 

Does anyone have any actual information on this?