Doubledecker Trains for British Railways

" said:

Don't think you'd have to worry about that here - it'd be solid 3+2 throughout, no first class, no bogs, no nothing. Just unadulterated swathes of sardine seating and cow pens.

:blink: How can you even fit 3+2 on a single level train in the UK? I've been informed that the reason for 2+2 on out bi-levels is that they have to taper in by a few inches toward the top. Your cars are what, a foot narrower? I know Americans are, um, overweight, but the UK isn't know for its healthy eating habits either.

" said:

Dear me, you could fit 3+3 in those Bombardier bilevel coaches without any effort at all - and a surprising number of table seats, too (though perhaps that varies by operator). Those can hardly be called commuter stock...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interior_of_the_Rail_Runner.JPG

Wow look at all that real estate being wasted between seats. You could drive a chuffing tank down that aisle, too!

(And there's terrifying amount of leg room - are you sure this is a commuter vehicle?)

:blink: How can you even fit 3+2 on a single level train in the UK? I've been informed that the reason for 2+2 on out bi-levels is that they have to taper in by a few inches toward the top. Your cars are what, a foot narrower? I know Americans are, um, overweight, but the UK isn't know for its healthy eating habits either.

" said:

Dear me, you could fit 3+3 in those Bombardier bilevel coaches without any effort at all - and a surprising number of table seats, too (though perhaps that varies by operator). Those can hardly be called commuter stock...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interior_of_the_Rail_Runner.JPG

Wow look at all that real estate being wasted between seats. You could drive a chuffing tank down that aisle, too!

(And there's terrifying amount of leg room - are you sure this is a commuter vehicle?)

" said:

" said:

Don't think you'd have to worry about that here - it'd be solid 3+2 throughout, no first class, no bogs, no nothing. Just unadulterated swathes of sardine seating and cow pens.

:blink: How can you even fit 3+2 on a single level train in the UK? I've been informed that the reason for 2+2 on out bi-levels is that they have to taper in by a few inches toward the top. Your cars are what, a foot narrower? I know Americans are, um, overweight, but the UK isn't know for its healthy eating habits either.

Like this. A lot of the time the middle seat is left unoccupied with people preferring to stand - oddly more in the evening than the morning I've noticed.

Peter

" said:

To be fair, most of the western part of The Netherlands (where most stock is double deck) is suburban. Intercity stations generally lie between 10 and 30 minutes of travel time between them. The IC The Hague-Amsterdam (34 minutes) has 6(!) stops on it's route. Amsterdam-Rotterdam (45 minutes) also has 6 stops. Amsterdam-Utrecht, also 30 minutes has only 2 stops though ;). IC’s outside the western (randstad) are mostly single deck and between 4 and 12 cars in length.[...]

In Zurich the core lines has station intervals at approx. 3 min with a headway of 4 min in peak.
Peak time trains are normally 12 cars in length, double decked.
[br]
" said:

with Basingstoke to Waterloo being assessed for double deck trains I imagine it's getting to a stage where it could become the most viable option. trains on this route are already at max length due to platforms at waterloo, and the cost and work involved to extend the platforms at waterloo would be massive and would likely end up with a highly inflexible layout. between waterloo and Basingstoke there are no tunnels, yes there are bridges, but when you look consider they have raised the majority of bridges between Paddington and Bristol for the electrification works there then it's not out of the question to also do it here.

Remodeling bridges is normally significantly cheaper than having to remodel a tunnel, due to the shorter length of track concerned.
The most likely problem here is, that you have to order a sub-fleet/new type which will be restricted to that line. Ordering in small numbers hurts the price per unit and having a sub-fleet can drive up running costs.
But at one point you run out of options and you have to make a decision to meet the demand.
It would be nice to see more capacity for the commuters.

One major flaw with bi or split level cars in North America has been the general reduction of seating density when a carrier moves to the multi level design. Older single level stock would have 3+2 seating with room for 130-135 seated passengers. Bi-level equipment has uniformly implemented 2+2 seating and than added some longitudinal seating and bathrooms. The result is that the bi-level cars will only seat 140-155 people. I guess there can be two isles for standees, but multi-level cars are rarely the panacea they are made out to be.

" said:

One major flaw with bi or split level cars in North America has been the general reduction of seating density when a carrier moves to the multi level design. Older single level stock would have 3+2 seating with room for 130-135 seated passengers. Bi-level equipment has uniformly implemented 2+2 seating and than added some longitudinal seating and bathrooms. The result is that the bi-level cars will only seat 140-155 people. I guess there can be two isles for standees, but multi-level cars are rarely the panacea they are made out to be.

Seats? Just take up room you could use to pack in a few more punters. There's a reason we have the phrase 'full and standing' on this side of the pond! :laugh:

Look at class 378s. A thin strip of seats along the wall of the train, leaving a massive space in the middle to cram miserable londoners in every morning!